“The New Missions: Anti-Missions”…What?
About the Author
Ben spends most of his time working with underprivileged kids in Tijuana, Mexico, encouraging them to continue their education. He's an unofficial member of Iglesia Bautista Monte Horeb, which runs the elementary school, Centro Pedagógico Didaque.
Conspiracy theories aside (as even Art Bell is a political conservative), the U.S. government offers its citizens a first-class ride to do whatever they dream. And if one is void of ambitions or down on his or her luck, the democracy offers a deluxe third-class that really ain’t too bad. It’s sort of like sitting over the wing of a 737-900 in a leather-wrapped middle seat. A plasma screen three feet from your face plays a movie released three months ago, and every couple of hours you’re handed pretzels and Starbucks coffee. I mean, how bad is life in third-class? It’s not a G-V, but it’s highly suitable for today’s purposes and outright luxurious with respect to world timeline. The poor in the United States have freebies and safety nets galore. This is unavailable and unimaginable in the majority of the world, yet CNN and state universities portray the opposite. Just yesterday I saw a U.S. citizen with a t-shirt that read: “The New Flag: Anti-Flag.” The drawing below had mock soldiers putting an upside-down flag on top of a hill. Surely this young man also believes that Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world today.
My view of this citizen? How naive. He’s probably never been outside the U.S. besides a trip to Vancouver, B.C., and summer backpacking around Europe. What nonsense! He may be a nice guy with many valid points—but they’re surely taken to an extreme without a grounded perspective or context. It’s good to criticize that which is already good: this is what has brought the U.S. to the well-roundedness that its citizens enjoy today. But loud, unbalanced criticism puts pressure on the wrong side, allowing the worst offenders to take advantage.
Okay: missions. I hear in the U.S. the same rhetoric directed toward the Western missionary movement. It’s great to refine, but are mission agencies (and their missionaries) from the West that bad? Does not each and every other country have its own style(s) that would eventually face due criticism? South Korea is now sending out multitudes of missionaries; and a few months back I read an article (written by a Korean) in harsh analysis of their style, perspectives, and reasons for doing what they do.
I don’t agree with the “Western style” on a variety of takes. But with a world perspective, I don’t think I’ve seen much better. And I believe back-seat criticism (wearing a t-shirt with blatant hypocrisy) is detrimental and hurtful, and it shows incredible immaturity.
September 29th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
I once heard the president of a very large, very well known missions organization speak for over an hour on how bad all the missionaries (from his agency) had messed things up. He insisted they had done, said, and stressed all the wrong things, and explained how he and his “new” colleagues were going to change it. Some of the men and women he spoke of may have done wrong, but I couldn’t help but wonder if he understood that all the churches, schools, radio stations, and other ministries he now vowed to revolutionize were built by these “bad” ambassadors. Also, some of his proposed changes struck me as ten times worse than the “old” methods. Looking back, the whole thing just seems very sad. Anyhow, I think I know what you’re talking about.
September 30th, 2006 at 4:08 am
I found your article very refreshing. Of course we missionaries should always be interested in improving our methods. But badmouthing the efforts of those who have gone before can become quite counterproductive.
October 4th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Chris—interesting comment. Thanks.
Last night in my seminary class we studied 1 Samuel 17:28 where David’s oldest brother, Eliab, rags on him for allegedly not attending the sheep. In essence, Eliab, under pressure, displaced his anger on the innocent David.
Sounds like the missions organization president may have done the same.
October 4th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Andrew—I agree. There’s got to be a balance of the two. Glad it was refreshing.