In the Name of “Mission Work” book about CAM/Mast

[Neto]

So what do you want to see?

For all of us who attempt to minister (to our next-door neighbor, overseas, or somewhere in between) increased self-awareness and soul-searching as to
1) what drives/motivates our ministry endeavors
2) how we actually view the recipients of our ministry
3) the experiencial impact of our endeavors on the recipient(s) of our ministry

I’d be interested in a discussion on why mission work always seems to take place in places where the people will be dependent on you for some kind of help. What aren’t there mission fields at colleges, or Wall Street, or Hollywood?

I understand the concept of ‘feeding the hungry’ and I’m a big believer in it. But I wonder how much of mission theology would take a hit if it was directed towards people with more resources than those doing the mission work.

It might require a much higher support level, just to "gain a hearing". A missionary can, for the benefit of the people, choose to live at a lower level than what they were accustomed to before, but the opposite is not generally possible, and a person would have to have a very unique group of supporters. (The Brazilians in the city often assumed that we were there in their country to get rich somehow - and told us that they "knew" that we were mining gold back in the village.)

But there is also the fact that it is the poor and isolated peoples who more than others, do not have the opportunity to hear the Gospel w/o someone making a special effort to reach them. Isolated tribes often have no Scripture in their own language at all, while wealth almost always draws a person into the major society, where opportunities are generally much more available.

Then there is the cultural factor. I don't think I could pull it off myself. I grew up on the poor side in terms of averages, and I have never mixed in "high society". (But in college I was involved in a ministry toward Jewish people, and some of those we visited were probably relatively wealthy, certainly compared to myself. That was easier, I think, than a situation where the missionary would be living among the people.)

All this said, there is a very important point involved in your question. I do believe that no missionary should create dependency, or encourage it in any way. Giving too many gifts can do that. We sometimes gave gifts of rice & beans, or something else special, but in general they paid for what they got from us. There are other tribes in Brazil that have been ruined culturally by being given too many things. (Another Bible translation couple who were assigned to a tribal group served by our mission center were told by the tribal leaders that they would be allowed to live there and do Bible translation, but would be required to pay somewhere around $10,000.00 for the privilege. It was represented as a one-time payment, but it probably would not have remained so, once the original funds were depleted.)

As I've remarked elsewhere in this discussion, I think that recipients of technological development projects (like well drilling) should be done in a way that REQUIRES the involvement of the people who will benefit from it. It creates a sense of ownership, and that will also encourage them to not mistreat or misuse the equipment. Be willing to see a project take more of your time, and possibly even fail, if the people do not get involved. If it is something they feel they need, they will help. If it is not a felt need, then the outside workers have not done their job well. OK, so maybe YOU know that they need a well for clean water, because they are drinking contaminated water, and are often sick with amoeba or intestinal worms, or maybe there is a danger of cholera in the area. Generally speaking, if there is not local backing for a development project, it will fail. Maybe the well (or whatever) gets built, but it will not be valued, so it will fall into disrepair. The "change agents" (the foreign workers) should find an in-group individual who will be a sort of "sponsor" for the project (not a financial sponsor, but a person who will "talk it up" among their own people). (Incidentally, all of this will be taught in any good Bible college that is geared toward training field workers for missionary efforts. Here I am plugging education again.... )

[Biodegradableglitter]

For all of us who attempt to minister (to our next-door neighbor, overseas, or somewhere in between) increased self-awareness and soul-searching as to
1) what drives/motivates our ministry endeavors
2) how we actually view the recipients of our ministry
3) the experiencial impact of our endeavors on the recipient(s) of our ministry

I’d be interested in a discussion on why mission work always seems to take place in places where the people will be dependent on you for some kind of help. What aren’t there mission fields at colleges, or Wall Street, or Hollywood?

I understand the concept of ‘feeding the hungry’ and I’m a big believer in it. But I wonder how much of mission theology would take a hit if it was directed towards people with more resources than those doing the mission work.

It might require a much higher support level, just to "gain a hearing". A missionary can, for the benefit of the people, choose to live at a lower level than what they were accustomed to before, but the opposite is not generally possible, and a person would have to have a very unique group of supporters. (The Brazilians in the city often assumed that we were there in their country to get rich somehow - and told us that they "knew" that we were mining gold back in the village.)

But there is also the fact that it is the poor and isolated peoples who more than others, do not have the opportunity to hear the Gospel w/o someone making a special effort to reach them. Isolated tribes often have no Scripture in their own language at all, while wealth almost always draws a person into the major society, where opportunities are generally much more available.

Then there is the cultural factor. I don't think I could pull it off myself. I grew up on the poor side in terms of averages, and I have never mixed in "high society". (But in college I was involved in a ministry toward Jewish people, and some of those we visited were probably relatively wealthy, certainly compared to myself. That was easier, I think, than a situation where the missionary would be living among the people.)

All this said, there is a very important point involved in your question. I do believe that no missionary should create dependency, or encourage it in any way. Giving too many gifts can do that. We sometimes gave gifts of rice & beans, or something else special, but in general they paid for what they got from us. There are other tribes in Brazil that have been ruined culturally by being given too many things. (Another Bible translation couple who were assigned to a tribal group served by our mission center were told by the tribal leaders that they would be allowed to live there and do Bible translation, but would be required to pay somewhere around $10,000.00 for the privilege. It was represented as a one-time payment, but it probably would not have remained so, once the original funds were depleted.)

As I've remarked elsewhere in this discussion, I think that recipients of technological development projects (like well drilling) should be done in a way that REQUIRES the involvement of the people who will benefit from it. It creates a sense of ownership, and that will also encourage them to not mistreat or misuse the equipment. Be willing to see a project take more of your time, and possibly even fail, if the people do not get involved. If it is something they feel they need, they will help. If it is not a felt need, then the outside workers have not done their job well. OK, so maybe YOU know that they need a well for clean water, because they are drinking contaminated water, and are often sick with amoeba or intestinal worms, or maybe there is a danger of cholera in the area. Generally speaking, if there is not local backing for a development project, it will fail. Maybe the well (or whatever) gets built, but it will not be valued, so it will fall into disrepair. The "change agents" (the foreign workers) should find an in-group individual who will be a sort of "sponsor" for the project (not a financial sponsor, but a person who will "talk it up" among their own people). (Incidentally, all of this will be taught in any good Bible college that is geared toward training field workers for missionary efforts. Here I am plugging education again.... )

This is good stuff.

[mike]

This is good stuff.

Yes. If you search Neto's posts on this forum, you will find an incredible amount of insight based on his life experience as a Bible translator and missionary.

[Josh]

What kind of changes do you think would take place
if those two were separated?

Then people who join the church feel like they are truly part of it and contribute to it. Once the church is established, they can even start to think about operating their own service ministries.

In our church missionaries aren’t really supposed to provide much aid at all - an example is you aren’t supposed to give anyone rides to church. So sometimes the missionary couple is driving to church, and passes a churchgoer on their way walking in.