Here’s a worker who has to give a talk on “5 critical agency-missionary issues that will heavily influence your success as a missionary.” It’s an interesting query. Would you be willing to give your opinion? For example, how important is it that the agency provides accountability on language learning, … strategy, … finances? Which of these and other issues are key factors, in your opinion, in insuring your increased effectiveness? Note that if you mention a catch-phrase like, “Missionary care”, please tell briefly exactly what you mean (since member care is such a broad term). Thanks for taking time to pitch in!
It is interesting that Doug would mention *Missionary care*, since that is the issue of first importance that came to my mind. Missionary care in its broader sense is what is encompassed in Paul’s statement to the Church at Philippi: Every time I think of you my heart rejoices, for I remember how you have been PARTNERS with me in the Gospel. Care givers must be so involved in the ministry that they take ownership of the mission, fulfilling their commitment to it as faithfully as the missionary. Current practice of agencies generally states: *You can go to the field when you have reached your quota.* And all understand that that means your money. Agencies should rewrite that policy to say: *You can go to the field when you have developed a tight team of partners, knowledgeable fulfilling responsibilities in one or more of the SIX areas of care that Paul asked for, and that which every missionary today needs.* There are a number of books on this subject, two of which I would recommend: SERVING AS SENDERS and THE REENTRY TEAM, both available at http://www.eri.org. ~~~NEAL
Doug:
How interesting to hear from Neal Pirolo. Very Cool.
I work for an agency that serves churches as they send missionaries. All our agency does is “facilitate” missions for the sending church. We very much come from the same school of thought as Mr. Pirolo: missionaries need to be very connected to a caring sending team rather than have a business relationship with an agency.
The first thing I believe missionaries need to be accountable for is communication with their sending team/church. The second is if they have a family, how are they balancing family and work (ministry). The third is accountability on the ground. Has the missionary developed a give and take relationship locally with someone that can speak truth into his/her life?
Hello Friends at Brigada,
What questions to ask and know before you go?
One aspect is to realize that different mission agencies have different philosophies about fund rasing, and no one is particularily more spiritual than another, God has used all three of them at different times and blessed in all different situations. Gospel Recordings as an example has adopted
George Mueller’s aspect of success in only letting their requests be made known to God. No information, no solicitation, only totally trusting God for what is needed.
Hudson Taylor’s China Inland Mission is based on full information by no solicitation. Believe that one can share fully about what God is doing, but are not allowed to specifically ask for donations. Then there are others that have adopted Dwight L. Moody’s philosophy of full information and full solicitation. He believed that God had led him to do certain specific things and that in doing so God had also provided friends who would help him to fund those projects and make them reality. So he was very comfortable with telling about the project, the need and then asking very specifically from friends, even amounts of money that they shoud donate.
So make sure you know what your particular ideas are related to fund raising and make sure they match the agency you are going with, elsewise you may find you are mismatched and run into needless hardships along the way.
Second is to realize who are your supporters and how true they are to you. This is a hard one to really nail down, because in raising support we all assume everyone will give what they have pledged. But it is important to realize that different mission agencies respond differently to support that does not come in on a monthly basis once it is pledged. Some mission agencies will allow you to get on the mission field, but if your support base drops, you have to come home. Others will allow you to stay your two or 4 year stay, but will require that you pay back the shortfalls before proceeding to getting back on the field again, others do not require you to pay back the shortfall, but do require you to be 100% fully supported again before returning, and still others will allow you to stay on the field, only that if 60% of your supporters send in money, then you live on 60% that month and if next month is 30% then you live on 30% that month. So you have to ask and find out before you go which is which and which
one are you willing to operate under and understand the nature of your donators and their level of committment before you branch out.
Well, hope this is helpful in the line of understanding critical issues for success.
Thanks,
Sharnel…
An issue that troubles me is how much we should or shouldn’t say about our situation.
“Member care”, in the sense that supporters back home want to know what we are going through in order to pray effectively, suggests that we need to be open and share our concerns, even if they are dark and gloomy. When we are discouraged, going through difficult times, etc. is when we need support the most. Folk back home cannot pray effectively unless we tell them.
On the other hand, giving supporters too much of a dark and gloomy impression can also discourage them, or give them negative impressions about ourselves that we don’t intend, or bad impressions about our mission, mission organisation, or the people we work with while on the field.
Our comments need to be pitched at a nice level, even though they don’t always need to paint rosy pictures about missionaries.
Friends at Brigada, I am with a large missions organization with a presence in a wide variety of cultures and geographies worldwide. Over the last two years, we have conducted primary research on these very issues by visiting and interviewing administrators and workers in our various field locations.
The questions we asked were fairly straightforward and tuned toward understanding how the agency can best prepare missionaries for success, once they reached their field assignments:
1. What are the causes that most frequently sends people home from the field prematurely?
2. What characteristics – skills, knowledge or attitudes – are most critical to the missionary’s success?
3. Which of these critical characteristics are “invisible”, i.e., they are difficult to detect until tested in a real field setting?
The answers we got back were quite telling of the personal pain, loss of effectiveness, broken team relationships, and premature departures from the assignment.
From hundreds of pages of notes, I compiled my own "Top Five" characteristics – of missionaries – that are most critical for their success.
They are:
1. Flexibility – This means having expectations that include the strong possibility that the work you start with won’t match your training, or that the imagery set up in your mind for the work setting doesn’t match the reality when you hit the ground in the field.
2. Cross-Cultural Sensitivity – Understanding, adjusting for and adapting to the customary beliefs, social forms, goals, values and world view of a people group affecting every aspect of life: for example, relationships, education, money issues, history, work environment, religion, and family.
3. Spiritual Maturity & Warfare Ability – Depth of relationship with God that produces strength and reliability, steadfastness, battle-readiness in the face of difficulties of all kinds, especially direct spiritual attacks.
4. Servant's Heart & Attitude – A sensitivity and willingness to respond to the needs and interests of others, placing them before one’s own interests. Empathy for others and humble response in action to see that their needs met.
5. Teaming and Partnering Ability – Attitude and understanding leading toward effective collaboration with other individuals and agencies toward a common goal. Capability for forging and maintaining a productive working relationship.
These are the things that our fields report with the most passion and the most compelling stories of success and failure. In some ways, there is nothing new under the sun here, but our organization is looking fresh at how we can best respond and detect / correct for these as people join and head for the field. Thanks, Bruce
This thread is *reeeeeeally* generating some great content. In fact, if this is any indication, it might be some of the best content ever. Note that once you leave a comment… even if you just comment “interesting! Thanks” or whatever, you can, in effect, *subscribe* to the thread. You just need to open a Google account — which is free — so they have your email address to which they can forward the items. My experience is — they don’t ever spam you if you don’t ask for spam. So –if you’d like to be notified of each posting here … and don’t want to keep coming back to check, “sign up” for a Google Account, log a simple post, and catch some of these great add-on items. Good work guys!
I think one of the major factors in missionary effectiveness in this shrunken world is: How do you relate with national ministries on the scene? We shouldn’t go there to compete, nor even to “hire” the gifted nationals away from their existing works, leaving them devastated of leadership. I hope wherever you go it is with an invitation from the nationals as well as a mandate from heaven. Check more out at http://www.cosim.info (COSIM = Coalition On Support of Indigenous Ministries).
As a minister who has survived the demise of two mission organizations, I would like to add that there must be trust between the missionary and the leadership of the organization. Real personal relationships must be invested in, and changes in the organization must not be forced top-down on the missionary. It is my opinion that in both cases of organizational failure that I experienced, the problem stemmed from mission leaders detaching themselves from the historical values of the organization and detaching themselves from relationships with the missionaries and making top-down changes to the organization. I suggest that missionaries ask themselves, “How much do I know and trust these leaders?” “What is the liklihood of the organization sticking with its historical values and strategies?” and “How much influence do I have on the organization if I become concerned about a problem?” If the answer to at least two of these questions is, “Not much” you are not likely to find long-term success.