Assessing Modern Missions: Why We Should Consider Cancelling The Missions Program

I am but one voice among several who have heralded the call, ‘Cancel the missions program.’ If we have met personally, you likely know that I am not very enthusiastic about the way we do missions. Before I sound unnecessarily critical, allow me to share my general assessment after my years as a missionary. I simply want to share one view and advocate why we need to at least consider canceling missions programs.

The Missionary-Church Relationship
For all of its complexities, the relationship between churches and missionaries is treated very casually. On the side of churches, the way in which we decide to throw our money behind a specific missionary is flawed because it does not give us the opportunity to vet those missionaries properly before they leave for the field, nor does the process allow us to properly support and evaluate them once they have arrived on the field.

This relationship is not one-sided, though. Missionaries face the same flaws on their end of the relationship. Rarely are they able to properly vet the churches that support them. Long-term, they are disconnected from the church, so it is relatively difficult to evaluate the relationship continually to determine if it still makes sense. In their ways, missionaries also support the local church, but how we conduct our relationships often limits our ability to do this.

Perhaps the casual relationship reflects the simple conviction we feel for the Lord's work. Yet look at Colossians 1:28 with me, and note what the Apostle Paul says when he shares his aspirations for ministry: “Him (Christ) we proclaim warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom that we may present everyone mature in Christ.”

Does the weight of that burden impress on you the seriousness of God's call? Now, lest we carry a responsibility that is not ours, let us remember that God alone changes hearts and transforms people (2 Corinthians 3:18; cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:5). Neither should we be complacent about the role God has placed us in for service to Him (2 Corinthians 15:10; Colossians 1:29).

In light of those verses in Colossians, it is pertinent for us to consider two things about missions. First, how does Colossians 1:28 motivate the missionary? The missionaries you support or send will carry this burden to the field. Therefore, you are not unreasonable to ask, "How is the missionary fulfilling his role in God's plan?"

The question that follows that is, "How is the church fulfilling its role in God's plan for our missionaries?" This question prompts a more extended discussion about the different relationships a church has with its missionaries versus its in-person members. There is even a little discussion about the relationship based on whether you are the sending or supporting church. Those discussions are too lengthy for here. Instead, I only want to impress upon you that the church does have at least some sort of obligation towards the spiritual health of its missionaries based on Colossians 1:28-29, even if the depth of that responsibility may vary.

Two Detriments to the Relationship
Why is it that we treat our missionary-church relationships this way? Likely, posing that question to a large group would yield an extensive array of answers. However, I think there are two influential aspects of how we do missions to consider in a general overview. So, permit me to close this particular discussion with a look at those.

The Missions Program
Primarily, those calling for a cancellation of missions programs do so based on one word: program. Programs in the church are not harmful until they become programs – at least, that's a mindset I find to be usually true. What I mean by that is that usually, programs start off as well-intentioned, biblically-based, and God-oriented plans for fulfilling God's will. Eventually, though, they become 'programs,' resulting in the driving force being man's will instead of God's work.

I think part of the issue goes a bit further, though, particularly with missions. In an attempt to make our missions more formal and streamlined, we become professional unprofessionals. We forget that those who make up our missions board and plans for activities are laypeople. We expect from them highly-specialized, highly-skilled work. Most laypeople’s experience with this is in the secular world, which means that if our people are to labor for the Lord, they must be taught a biblical framework for missions, given tools and tips for assessment and evaluation, and be motivated by a desire for God.

The Missions Organization
The second influencer on how the church undertakes missions is the rise of missions organizations. The reliance (and I use that word intentionally) on missions organizations transforms the church's perception of God's Great Commission. We transfer much of the responsibility to that organization and minimize the function of the church. Yet, the New Testament always ties the model of Christian activities to the local church, and missions is no different. The context of the Great Commission is the local body of believers, and nowhere do we find an organization represented.

I do not decry the use of organizations. They serve an essential role in supporting churches fulfill the Great Commission.
Missions organizations undertake roles such as aiding with paperwork (i.e., taxes and accounting, obtaining visas, etc.), providing support during emergency situations, and guiding the churches in special needs of the missionary. Therefore, they are a critical aspect of the complex world that we live in these days. However, the role of the missions organization is to support the local church, not to supplant it. Unfortunately, churches are frequently willing to delegate their responsibility, and the organizations are often willing to accept responsibility.

The Great Commission is a daunting task when we consider its scope. Its undertaking requires the cooperation of Christians who work together to utilize individual gifts for God’s overarching purposes. It is also a very serious task, requiring us to engage God's call sincerely, actively, and passionately. Sometimes, what we do undermines both of these aspects.

Please note what I am not saying. I am not saying we should stop missions. I am not even saying we should get rid of the missions program. I am only saying we should consider getting rid of the ‘program.’ Therefore, my hope here is that we would dialogue, ponder, and look to God's truth to guide that consideration. Such a consideration leads us to two immediate concerns: (1) How do we determine if we should cancel the program or change it? and (2) If we do, what should be done instead? Those are important questions, and I'll seek to address them in the upcoming weeks.

‍