The Mission “Effort”

SUN., MAR. 8, 1992, 6:20 AM
FARM, STUDY

This weekend your church is enlivened by the presence of a husband and wife team who were called to be in the mission field. Nancy even had that special call to a particular country, and these good people have served Me well in the years that have been in Africa. I do call some to serve as missionaries, and I do call some for specific places. I do want the Christian good news to be heard and accepted by people all over this earth.

However, the mission effort is a very “tricky” one. As a youngster grows up in this country she or he unconsciously associates their Christian experiences with certain cultural practices, and thus if just seems “right” that certain beliefs must be held and certain practices continued… or discontinued. It is hard, then, as this person takes this Christian message to a people with quite a different culture to decide what must be retained and what can be adapted.

The Scriptural story tells of My servants Peter and Paul having to make compromises and adaptations as the non-Jews were to be invited to be part of this new movement. Should the Scriptural account be interpreted as one of flexible, continuing adaptations to other folk, or as the way for all others to follow. Missionaries have interpreted it each way (and some in between), and some of each have been successful… and not so.

For a few individuals in a land in which Christianity is being introduced the good news is quite clear and comes through now matter how or by whom it is presented. I just call some to be ready for this message of hope and joy, and when they finally hear it they just “know” that this is what they anticipated. These tend to be few, and they may or may not be natural, positive leaders.

Most of the people in which a mission “effort” is being established are not so called, and therefore this “good news” must be evaluated more objectively and compared, consciously or unconsciously, with present beliefs and practices. When Christianity was presented as clearly patriarchal it was more easily accepted in cultures that had a long tradition of patriarchal dominance. As the message becomes more equalitarian it must be compared, by many of the people, to present practices and trends. How will such a religion change living patterns? Will new practices be better? What do we gain, and what do we lose? (And you are more than aware that this is going on in your Church, even in this culture at this time.)

How shall “love” be interpreted? Does God in Christ love people with a variety of practices or should all Christians be easily identified by what they say, do, and don’t do? To you, obviously, I say that My love embraces a wide range of behaviors… even beliefs. But to others I say that the Christian way is a “narrow way,” and Christians must be clearly identified. Those who serve in the mission field, called clearly or not-so, represent quite a range in relation to this question. Remember that I do like diversity.

I do want Christians in Zaire. I do want them to be a force for love and for sharing in a country that is very hard to “manage.” I approve of their dedicated protests against a harsh government, but there can be no guarantee that a new government would make life instantly better for Christians. It is a sad situation in that country… but no sadder than in several other lands where Christians struggle even more to be true to the Gospel as it unfolds in their lives.