Thanks for your comment. I think that at the core, we are in agreement about a lot of things. I agree about the problem of “segregational and cowboy attitudes” on the part of whomever it may be, long-termers or short-termers. And I agree that each and every one of us, as members of the Body of Christ, has a vital role to play in the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Also, mission agencies do indeed exist because believers from local churches bind together in order to more strategically contribute towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

However, I think it is important to remember that the fundamental objective of world missions is the fulfillment of the Great Commission; that is, to make disciples of all the people groups in the world, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey what Jesus taught us. Mobilizing and helping the members of the churches that support missions to play their part in the task is an important means toward the fulfillment of the task. But it should not, in my understanding, take precedence over the fulfillment of the task itself. Whenever we send out workers, we should always ask if we are being the best possible stewards of the resources God has entrusted into our hands for the fulfillment of the task. This includes long-termers, short-termers, and the support we send to nationals.

Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly. But when you say, “If the agency and those who work for it cease to earnestly assit other believers in experiencing mission work, what are they doing out there? And why are we supoorting them?”, I have to ask what that says about the missionaries who faithfully ministered overseas for several centuries of “modern-day Protestant missions” (e.g. since Zinzendorf and Carey). Are you saying because they didn’t work with the churches that sent them out to mobilize short-term workers that their work was not biblical or valid?

For the most part, the phenomenon of short-term overseas missions is a recent development. I think that, in general, it is a great thing that many people have been able to be used by God and put their gifts to use through short-term mission trips. However, I don’t think that in order for local churches to grow and mature spiritually and do what God has called them to do that it is necessary for as many people as possible to make trips overseas. I don’t think either long-term missionaries, short-term missionaries, or long-distance support of national workers, are sacrosanct in and of themselves. They are all means to an end. The end is the fulfillment of the Great Commission. We must continue to ask ourselves, as history marches on, and new situations arise, what is the best stewardship today for us as individual believers and local churches toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission. And, while I agree we must not accept the “jaded” and “know-it-all” attitudes of some long-termers, I do believe it is important to take into account the wisdom of years of cross-cultural experience.

At my church in Durham, NC, we are trying to focus on involvement overseas on a few areas, favoring repeat visits to the same national church/IMB missionary (usually from our church).

I agree that this long term focus may yeild the most fruit. Less up front, but more over time.

Lay people also get more invovled in people’s personal lives, communicating throughout the year. They are less likely to do something rash that may damage a growing relationship.

Great Post!

As I’ve written before (I think on your blog, perhaps), I’m looking forward to hearing how your partnership with the REAP project goes. It sounds like a really exciting opportunity.

SelahV,

I agree with you. I think the “harvest cycle” principles are transferrable to just about any context. The big difference for many churches in the States is that they have been operating in the “maintaining the ground for on-going planting, cultivating, and harvest” stage for as long as anyone can remember. That is one of the good things about church planting, like Geoff and Roger are doing. It makes you think about evangelism and discipleship from a different perspective.

The truth is, as I see it, much of American society is fast becoming a pioneer field, in the sense of needing to work through the initial phases of removing the rocks, plowing, and sowing, before being able to reap with any real results. If I understand correctly, that is one of the main points a lot of the “missional” movement people are making.

Strider,

Thanks for the support from a different part of the world. How have you seen some positive results from short-termers? My guess would be that you are mainly in a “rock removing” and “plowing” stage there in “Middle Earth.”

Preparing the soil is vital and the most important part of the process of expecting any kind of harvest. Seeds can sprout from the worst of soils, but they simply cannot produce like those planted in rich, fertilized, enriched soil. Blessings. selahV

As America gets more and more refugees from other countries, we can learn much from this post. They are coming to our culture with their culture and they can get a bit turned-around as to how to adapt to ours when they own theirs and are borrowing from ours.

In America we have our little people groups of cultures. In New England we had Italian, Greek, Puerto Rican, German and a multiplicity of others. They tended to group together in communities as if they have their own little countries within our country. And we as SB have gone in and tried to minister to and reach these groups. Due to wars and persecution in other countries, we now have sub-countries (if you would) residing in our country. Korean, Chinese, Haitian, Vietnamese, Somalian, Iraqi, Mexican and on an on.

Your very timely post speaks well to we who try to reach the world for our Lord. Thank you. Gives me much to think about. selahV
(as if I didn’t have enough. )

A most insightful and timely post.

Here’s your “money” quote: “…many times, it is more strategic for churches to be involved in a few on-going projects, developing long-term relationships with those on a particular field, than in many different “hit-and-miss,” one-time endeavors.”

Obviously, there are still churches out there that look at their short-term missions as something akin to a “tour-guide service.” But I hope those numbers are becoming fewer.

Local (North American) churches do, indeed, need to make long-term commitments to particular people groups in particular areas. I know that we have discussed it before, but I recommend something like the REAP Strategy employed by the two IMB teams in Peru (REAP North & REAP South). It involves local churches adopting “micro” people groups for a four-year time span.

Our partnership to reach the Panao Quechua people begins in January. Our first team will be a “scout” team, sort of “spying out the land.” Their mission is to locate all of the population centers, locate believers, find out about the RC church and the priests, who leads the festivals, etc… No actual evangelism, just gathering information. Then in March we are following with a veterinary team to four locations chosen by the scout team. Our vet will be accompanied by an outreach team. They will work alongside local believers to do evangelism. I will go down in June to do evangelism and church planting training. Then a team will be going in October to build upon and solidify the work from the first three teams. And we begin the next step in our strategy in 2009.

It takes much time and effort. It takes a local church becoming willing to step up and actually be the “church planting strategists” for that people group. And it takes leadership trained in the notion and process of church planting. I fear that may be a critical missing element among our churches here in the states. I worry that our typical pastoral aversion to church planting may have negative consequences in our efforts to facilitate CP movements overseas.

Anyhow … I’m rambling. But I’m looking forward to the discussion on this post today.