Tag Archive for: Missional Engagement

The Process of Missional Engagement (Part 2)

25 Jun Joel Busby
June 25, 2012

(Want to remind everyone that so much of the writing we do at Hopeful Realism belongs in the thinking-out-loud category. Perhaps my posts especially…)

“Those people…bless their heart. Poor things. And, bless your heart. That’s so nice of you to go help them.”

We come to our first paradigm or framework or approach to Mission.

The sound-byte above might seem over-stated. It is. I’ve made it sound worse than it is for heuristic purposes. But, as Mandy and I prepared to spend 3 months in Haiti in 2008, thoughts very much like this were expressed. Sincere, well-meaning, and well-intentioned people thought that “those people” needed “help” or “the gospel” or something, and that we were the ones to take it.

In this framework, mission is fundamentally a demonstration of pity. Short-Term Mission Trips, when executed thoughtlessly, can serve to cement this paradigm solidly in hearts and minds.

At best, this thought pattern is an inkling, or even an awakening, of genuine Christian compassion. At worst, it’s a toxic notion that re-enforces all kinds of wrong ideas about participation in the Mission of God.

A lot is assumed and implied in the “Bless their heart. Bless your heart” framework. I thought of at least 8 issues (I know there are more here than I can think of at the moment).

  1. “Those people” are primarily objects of our charity. They are recipients of our good graces. They standby, awaiting our kindness.
  2. “Those people” are played against “us.” There is an assumed categorical distinction. Though all evidence indicates a distinction between “us” and “them,” we must seriously lean against such thinking.
  3. Ultimately, people in other places are to be pitied. No one likes to be pitied, by the way.
  4. Somehow, participation in the mission of God is exceptional Christian work, reserved for a special class.
  5. The ones who go are heroic.
  6. Involvement in the Mission of God is optional. Participating in the alleviation of suffering in our broken world is optional.
  7. One can detect an assumption that lives lived in comfortable places do not contribute to suffering in difficult places. This is simply not true. The connections may lie in a tangled, uncontrollable web, but the connections are there.
  8. Real difficulties and struggle in the world can be solved by Christian niceties.

Obviously, the folks who think along these lines do not have these 8 ideas —as a whole or in part— up-and-running. At least, I sincerely hope not.

Again, I’ll focus on the positive. This kind of thinking is an inkling of Christian compassion. It’s an awakening. In fact, it’s often the first step towards missional engagement.

We can be mad at people who think like this. We can be frustrated. We can make brothers and sisters feel like pompous, clueless, snobby, and thoughtless Christians. But, in my experience, most Christians are simply unaware. I’ve been there too. Worse, in my missional thinking, I still sometimes sense this attitude lurking in the corners of my heart and mind. I haven’t arrived. I’ve less than arrived.

Though our ministries need a prophetic edge, they also need a pastoral heart.

As pastors and leaders, we must push people further. Force them to think about these 8 assumptions (and others).

How do we do this?

I’m not exactly sure. Expose the assumptions. Sometimes just pointing this stuff out is a helpful way forward. Ask hard questions. Refuse to allow certain takeaway lessons from Short-Term experiences. Literally refuse. Train. Educate in every part of the church’s life. I certainly believe that appropriate thinking about Mission must be a whole-church, concerted effort.

Don’t be mad. Push, prompt, lead, and shepherd.

The Process of Missional Engagement (Part 1)

22 Jun Joel Busby
June 22, 2012

This post begins a series of posts I’m calling “A Process of Missional Engagement.”

Recently, much has been written calling the Short-Term Mission Trip (STMT) phenomenon in Evangelicalism (especially American Evangelicalism) into question. One such example is this week’s post on the Gospel Coalition — “Why You Should Consider Canceling Your Short-Term Mission Trips.”

A consensus seems to have emerged:  Evangelicals’ approach to “Mission(s)” is quite problematic.

I’ve read many of these kinds of resources and have strong opinions about STMTs and their place in the life of the church.

Further, I have a vested interest in following these developments. All of this is personal for me. In my full-time role as a minister to college students, I wrestle theologically and philosophically with what we do, or don’t do, in the category of “mission.” But even more importantly, I’m involved with a ministry effort in Haiti. My responsibility within this organization is to connect, coordinate and manage short term teams. Suffice it to say that I spend a lot of time to trying to lead, think about, shape, craft, connect, etc in this aspect of Evangelical life. A huge personal passion is how to lead people to think of the work of God in the world and how to participate in it.

That’s what this series is about.

I’m wanting to propose a potential way forward with how we lead people to think of “Mission.” In my work with college students, in my local church, in my responsibilities in Haiti, how can I lead the church towards a richer, fuller, more healthy engagement in the Mission of God?

This series of posts will have implications for STMTs. But I hope it’s broader than that.

In my experience of leading God’s people in these things, I see five paradigms for how Christians think of “mission.” For better or for worse, I believe most Christians approach “mission” in one of these 5 ways. Further, I believe most Christians engage “mission” in this sequence.  A forthcoming post will explain each.

“Bless Their Heart/Bless Your Heart.” Mission as a demonstration of pity.
“Christian Altruistic Tourism.” Mission as adventure.
“White Man’s Burden.” Mission as North American takeover.
“God’s Doing Something Here.” Mission as participation.
“Mutuality in Service and Mission.” Mission as fellowship and friendship.

Instead of being angry about how the church thinks about mission, I propose that we think about ways to intentionally lead people through this progression. Our job is to push them along in their journey, purposefully and pastorally.