Skip to main content

Local Mission vs. Worldwide Mission

The other day a colleague of mine heard her pastor preach a sermon saying something like, 'Mission isn't about going somewhere else, it's about reaching people here at home!' We have also heard the same from mission boards here in the UK. 'We want to focus more on local mission.'

Why the switch from overseas mission to local mission?

I think there are several factors we need to consider:

  1. Our God is too small, to paraphrase J. B. Phillips. We believe God can help us reach folk in our neighbourhood, but the idea of going somewhere completely different, with another culture and language, seems too far fetched. Also, deep down we may believe that, actually, they are OK with their beliefs and practices, and we have little to share with them. This is tantamount to believing that each region has its own god, and ours is only in charge of the local patch.
  2. We have believed the lie that short-term is better than long-term mission. This has turned mission service into mission tourism, which is also fine, and better than getting sun-soaked on a beach in Greece, but does little to further the Kingdom. The trouble with focusing on short-term mission is that it ticks a box, and we think we've done something significant. Really?
  3. We have heard that the church is growing elsewhere, but not here. This makes us think that we need help, rather than wanting to send people to serve elsewhere. But this is not a universal truth. There are still many many unreached areas of the world. If you believe the church is growing elsewhere, then look into where it is growing (Korea, sub-Saharan Africa, etc.), and stop sending folk there! Only kidding. But seriously, there are many places in Asia, for instance, where the gospel has not yet begun to have an impact.
  4. I also suspect that our failure to send folk overseas means we have lost faith in the gospel, and therefore our local mission is also doomed to failure. It's not about getting people through the door into church, but about going to where they are, to the 'next village' as Jesus said (Mrk 1:38). We can't spend all our time in the local synagogue.
I could go on, but I think you have got my point. When will we get our vision back? When will we start believing in the God of Sinai, who made the mountain shake as he revealed his word to us there on that summit? (Exo, Heb, with thanks to Craig Blomberg for the idea). 
Labels:

Comments

  1. Scott Clark24 May 2019 at 11:37

    Yes! As George Verwer used to say: "We have swallowed 'grasshopper theology!'" That is, the spys went into the promised land and saw all the difficulties and forgot abour our miracle working LORD! Grace, Scott

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

One Person's Contextualisation is Another Person's Syncretism

I was in an interesting discussion full of anthropologists the other day. They were discussing syncretism. Most of them were of the view that outsiders cannot decide which practices are syncretistic and which are not. It has to be a decision made by local believers. This is because only local people can create indigenous theologies, that is, interpret Scripture according to the local worldview(s).  Not only that, some practices need to be tolerated in the short term, as we trust that new believers will gradually mature, and realise that those practices need to be weaned out of their lives. This can take time, perhaps years. Outsiders can, however, help local believers through the process of deciding for themselves which practices need to be rejected, which can be accepted, and which need to be modified according to (local formed) principles from Scripture. For example, ancestor practices, which my PhD thesis was on, are often continued by people after they have come to faith. They...
Post a Comment
Read more

Scripture Engagement for Translation Advisors

What do translation advisors need to know about Scripture engagement (SE), and why? Let's look at the 'why' first: Translation advisors (TAs) are often involved in day-to-day exegesis. They help mother-tongue translators (MTTs) prepare drafts. The MTTs they work with might not know Hebrew or Greek. The TAs then take part in the team check of that draft, which involves other MTTs in the project as well as the TA. Sometimes they are also involved in the coordination of the translation programme. They are very busy people. So why do they need to know about SE? Because: The translation is ultimately for an audience that has felt needs that are not being addressed by the translation programme. Analysing and meeting (or helping to meet) the felt needs of the audience should be the first priority of any mission worker, including TAs. Only about 30% of completed translations are well used. The initial set up of the programme needs to take SE into consideration (it's no good wai...
Post a Comment
Read more

Asset Based Bible Translation (ABBT)

Many of you will have heard of asset-based community development (ABCD). How can Bible translation programmes be asset based, rather than deficit based? The best way to look at this is a comparison table: Deficit based Asset based Driven by outsiders Driven by the community Outside funding Community funded Done to meet a need Done to help the community grow Quality control done by a consultant Community checked and approved Control from outside-in Lead by stepping back Products not accepted? Products are accepted Little engagement Engagement with products Scientific Organic Not sustainable Sustainable Of course many translation programmes these days are neither one nor t'other, they are somewhere between these two extremes. Nevertheless, this illustrates a point, and shows that the current ...
Post a Comment
Read more