THE CASE AGAINST CROSS-CULTURAL MISSIONARIES
I just finished a book by Bob Finley of Christian Aid. In it, he argues persuasively that all foreign missionaries should be pulled out of the countries in which they are currently serving. As you can imagine, this stance has caused furor in many Christian circles. Cross-cultural missionaries, after all, are often held up as the consummate Christians, and a church’s support of them a sign of radical obedience to the Great Commission.
Except that there are many things wrong with the cross-cultural missionary approach in the 21st century. First, there is no instance in Scripture that God ever sent a person to a place where he would be viewed as a foreigner and where he would have to learn a new language to communicate with the people around him. Not to say that because there is no example in the Bible, we can’t do it, but to say that that overwhelming example in the Bible is of something different: Christians evangelizing people who are visiting from another country, so that those visitors can go back to their home countries to spread the message. The parallels in modern-day America, for example, would be the massive number of non-citizens studying in our universities and living in our cities. Many are from countries that wouldn’t even let an American in for missionary purposes, but of course would let in a citizen who happened to have become a Christian while in America.
Finley argues that even if we could get American missionaries into these countries, we wouldn’t want to. Even the most austere of American Christians would still enjoy a standard of living far higher than that of the people he or she is trying to reach. Imagine a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Hindi person moving into your community, building a house ten times bigger than everyone else’s, drawing a salary a hundred times greater than the average, and enjoying gadgets far more cutting-edge than anyone has ever seen – and then that person tries to convert you to their religion and speaks of how their religion is about sacrifice and simplicity. No way would you buy it. But that’s what it’s like for an American, Canadian, or European missionary to go to a country in the developing world.
Money skews the whole thing, but it’s not the only thing. The fact that we are not from that culture also counts for a whole lot. Many people, out of genuine hospitality and cultural norms, will accept the message of a foreigner, but they will still see it as a foreign message. Better for people to hear the gospel from someone of their culture, lest it be mistaken as a Western or industrialized religion. Indigenous missionaries speak the language with perfect accents, understand cultural morays, and don’t furlough, either. Foreign missionaries, on the other hand, have to go through intensive language study just to get by. They may never totally “get” the culture they’ve been transplanted to; even if they do, they will invariably be viewed as outsiders, and in some cases suspected as being spies. And they are more expensive, by a factor of roughly 100, meaning that for the cost of sending an outsider into a country, you could equip 100 insiders.
Finley talks about Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America who pleaded with him to do what he could to get the foreign missionaries out of their countries, for their foreignness and their wealth were hurting, not helping, the work. He urges churches and missions agencies to forsake our colonial mentalities, which care more that we are expanding our reach and care less that we are abasing our brothers and sisters in developing countries. He recommends that we stop upholding foreign missionaries as the paragon for Christian sacrifice, and that we motivate young Christians to radical obedience in different ways than to encourage them to the mission field.
He speaks at length about what is appropriate for outside funds to support (outreach efforts, which can sometimes mean a few bucks for bicycles so that itinerant preachers can get to far-flung villages faster and more easily) and what is inappropriate (churches and pastors, which should be self-supporting and which are open to greed or jealousy or suspicion if they are funded by outsiders from rich countries). He warns against giving money directly to individuals, citing the Biblical principle of donations being laid before the elders for them to distribute as needed.
I am a huge fan of Christian Aid, and found the book to be well-written and challenging. I am conflicted, because many of my friends are foreign missionaries, and my church supports a number of foreign missionaries. I wish I could take comfort that it doesn’t have to be “either-or,” but that both models can peacefully co-exist, but Finley is adamant that an “either-or” approach is unacceptable. This is one I’ve stewed on for a few years now, and I will keep stewing on it. Either way, may God be glorified.
I just finished a book by Bob Finley of Christian Aid. In it, he argues persuasively that all foreign missionaries should be pulled out of the countries in which they are currently serving. As you can imagine, this stance has caused furor in many Christian circles. Cross-cultural missionaries, after all, are often held up as the consummate Christians, and a church’s support of them a sign of radical obedience to the Great Commission.
Except that there are many things wrong with the cross-cultural missionary approach in the 21st century. First, there is no instance in Scripture that God ever sent a person to a place where he would be viewed as a foreigner and where he would have to learn a new language to communicate with the people around him. Not to say that because there is no example in the Bible, we can’t do it, but to say that that overwhelming example in the Bible is of something different: Christians evangelizing people who are visiting from another country, so that those visitors can go back to their home countries to spread the message. The parallels in modern-day America, for example, would be the massive number of non-citizens studying in our universities and living in our cities. Many are from countries that wouldn’t even let an American in for missionary purposes, but of course would let in a citizen who happened to have become a Christian while in America.
Finley argues that even if we could get American missionaries into these countries, we wouldn’t want to. Even the most austere of American Christians would still enjoy a standard of living far higher than that of the people he or she is trying to reach. Imagine a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Hindi person moving into your community, building a house ten times bigger than everyone else’s, drawing a salary a hundred times greater than the average, and enjoying gadgets far more cutting-edge than anyone has ever seen – and then that person tries to convert you to their religion and speaks of how their religion is about sacrifice and simplicity. No way would you buy it. But that’s what it’s like for an American, Canadian, or European missionary to go to a country in the developing world.
Money skews the whole thing, but it’s not the only thing. The fact that we are not from that culture also counts for a whole lot. Many people, out of genuine hospitality and cultural norms, will accept the message of a foreigner, but they will still see it as a foreign message. Better for people to hear the gospel from someone of their culture, lest it be mistaken as a Western or industrialized religion. Indigenous missionaries speak the language with perfect accents, understand cultural morays, and don’t furlough, either. Foreign missionaries, on the other hand, have to go through intensive language study just to get by. They may never totally “get” the culture they’ve been transplanted to; even if they do, they will invariably be viewed as outsiders, and in some cases suspected as being spies. And they are more expensive, by a factor of roughly 100, meaning that for the cost of sending an outsider into a country, you could equip 100 insiders.
Finley talks about Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America who pleaded with him to do what he could to get the foreign missionaries out of their countries, for their foreignness and their wealth were hurting, not helping, the work. He urges churches and missions agencies to forsake our colonial mentalities, which care more that we are expanding our reach and care less that we are abasing our brothers and sisters in developing countries. He recommends that we stop upholding foreign missionaries as the paragon for Christian sacrifice, and that we motivate young Christians to radical obedience in different ways than to encourage them to the mission field.
He speaks at length about what is appropriate for outside funds to support (outreach efforts, which can sometimes mean a few bucks for bicycles so that itinerant preachers can get to far-flung villages faster and more easily) and what is inappropriate (churches and pastors, which should be self-supporting and which are open to greed or jealousy or suspicion if they are funded by outsiders from rich countries). He warns against giving money directly to individuals, citing the Biblical principle of donations being laid before the elders for them to distribute as needed.
I am a huge fan of Christian Aid, and found the book to be well-written and challenging. I am conflicted, because many of my friends are foreign missionaries, and my church supports a number of foreign missionaries. I wish I could take comfort that it doesn’t have to be “either-or,” but that both models can peacefully co-exist, but Finley is adamant that an “either-or” approach is unacceptable. This is one I’ve stewed on for a few years now, and I will keep stewing on it. Either way, may God be glorified.
Comments
I can agree that the average American in particular, no matter how strong their faith, is probably ill-suited for missionary work abroad. While some deride this as "America bashing", the fact is that few Americans are well-versed in other languages than English or cultures other than their own. I know of two missions my own church is sponsoring in which the missionaries, none of whom speak any foreign languages fluently, are in African and Asia teaching English as a second language - so that the natives can "receive the word" from the missionaries! This is both counterproductive and, I dare say, insulting. Why should other peoples and cultures have to labor through language lessons to receive the word?
Your take on using native believers of a given culture to spread the word os certainly the most sensible solution. I do think, however, (I hope I'm wrong on this) that sometimes western Christians in general and American Christians in particular don't trust Christians from the Third World to "keep the faith pure", thus the idea that only American/European Christians can effectively spread the word. (My reading of the behavior of American missionaries in China during the nineteenth century and early twentieth century makes me wonder if anything significant has changed).
I think there are many ways to do cross-cultural missions wrong - not just poorly, but wrong. And the need for indigenious leadership development is critical to effective cross-cultural missions.
But an inherent component, aspect, part of the Gospel is our life as one-body, one church world wide. At some level, that is inherently cross-cultural. I've learned more about the gospel through being outside of my cultural context than I ever could if I had remained isolated in it (as if that were possible or even desirable). That is because the Gospel isn't about my individual or my cultural experience, but about God's many-individual (corporate) and many-national (multi-ethnic) kingdom expanding.
Though the problems with cross-cultural missions must be addressed for the sake of the gospel, drawing a swift line in the sand to eliminate crossing-culture from the DELIVERY of the gospel teeters dangerously close to changing the MESSAGE of the gospel.
I hope I've not overstated this or misunderstood the post. Sincerely.