Fast to Slow Missions, Part 1

Cultural Exploration of a Filipino Br... Fast to Slow Missions: Part 2

Fast to Slow Missions, Part 1

This is a section of my book, “Walking With: A Theological Reflection on Christian Missions.” It is available by CLICKING HERE. In this section I promote three types of “paradoxical” missions:

Strong to Weak MissionsBig to Small MissionsRich to Poor Missions

So most of the rest of this post is about those three— from the book. After that, I would like to add a fourth and talk about this, primarily in the next post:

Fast to Slow Missions

Moving Beyond

I would like to promote a vision for future missions that I would like to call “Paradoxical Missions.”2 It is called that because it suggests values that are traditionally not encouraged in missions. Generally, these are things qualities that are counter-intuitive when it comes to Missions.

In general, these relate broadly to the idea that Missions should move – From Great to Good. With due respect to the book by Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t,3 I would like to promote a move in missions from Great to Good rather than Good to Great. I am not the first to suggest this. Back in 2003, Eric Swanson wrote an article in Christianity Today, “Great to Good Churches.”4 I really enjoyed that article. Of course, the idea is that the two terms (great and good) are on two different scales. Great is on a scale of Success. Good is on a scale of Righteousness. Of course, one can try to combine the two. One article tries to merge the scales a bit– Good to Great to Godly by Mike Bonem5 and a book, Good to Great in God’s Eyes by Chip Ingram,6 seeks to move the term Great fully into the Righteousness scale. I have no issues with any of these works. However, for me, the term “Great” is inherently problematic. Much like the term “Prosperity,” even though it has good potential meanings, it commonly becomes a toxic lure. To me, Christian missions should avoid anything that tempts one towards greatness. There are enough people and organizations striving for greatness. Let them get the accolades, and we should strive for goodness instead.7

Related to the move from Great to Good, are the following paradoxical characteristics:

Strong to Weak. Missionaries have commonly, and traditionally, come into a new culture from a position of strength. Early on, many missionaries considered mission lands as places that are under colonial rule, and often, although not always, served with support of the colonial authorities. Missionaries often would come in and be in a position to get their way because of funding from outside sources that locals lacked. In recent years, this strategy has been questioned.It may not be good for missionaries to be linked to colonialism/imperialism.It may not be good for missionaries to be seen as sources of economic blessings (leading to odd constructs such as prosperity gospel or cargo cults).It may not be good to promote dependency in developing churches in developing countries.It may not be good to keep a faith “foreign” by keeping it under economic hegemony of a foreign church or agency.
Out of this has come the growth of Vulnerable Missions. While I don’t really care for the term “vulnerable” I don’t have a better one. I do personally prefer “Weak Missions” but I know that is just too prone to misinterpretation. But in weakness, a missionary enters a culture as a lamb, not a lion. He or she has a more catalytic role than coercive. Reliance on God takes precedence over reliance on State, Denomination, or Financial supporters. (In Christian missions, I do have a lot of respect for the Honor-Shame Movement, which gives greater respect to “patronage.” Vulnerable Missions would seek to avoid patronage as something that can lead to dependency. I have not reconciled these— the support for dependency in the patronage system and the rejection of dependency in Vulnerable Missions. Maybe someday I will figure it out.)8

Big to Small. For many, Great implies Big, as does the word Strong. In missions, we talk about church-planting movements, saturation strategies, and “discipling a whole nation.” They sound Great, they sound Strong, they sound Big. However, having been raised in the “Burned Out District” of Western New York– a region of big revivalism and saturation strategies in the 19th century, I feel justified in being a bit cynical about the long-term repercussions of such big strategies. While AD2000 (the most well-known such activity) and other mission programs have pushed big goals with poorly justified deadlines, change is commonly occurring in the mustard seed activities around the world. Some like to modify the “Dream Big!!” mantra with the more realistic “Dream Big, Start Small.” For me, however, it doesn’t honor small. Small doesn’t have to be apologized for. We are all small, and it is entirely possible that a God-size vision is often a small vision. 9From Rich to Poor. Jesus instructed his disciples (both the Twelve and the Seventy) to go in groups of two without money. Many in the early church believed that Apostles (evangelists/church planters) were to take a vow of poverty as part of their role. The early church grew through lay people who were typically poor, and sometimes enslaved. The most successful and commendable mission work done in the Roman Catholic church was often done by the Mendicant orders. The Christian Community Development movement emphasizes strongly the importance of identifying with the poor. This is not to say that money is irrelevant or always counterproductive. However, many ministries would benefit from having less money– even in ones that may really need large amounts of money. For example, a Christian missions hospital requires a great deal of money to function. However, more money might not make them better. Less money, for example, may lead to better long-term solutions in ministry such as developing home healthcare programs.
This is not an argument against financial support for missions. Rather it is a caution against presuming that big vision, big finances mission work is better. But often I have seen missionaries who do great things but with woefully inadequate support, while mediocre missionaries are highly funded. Sadly, missions support is often based not on need, but on the ability of the missionary or mission organization to fund-raise.

I think of Gideon and his 300 soldiers. Gideon started with a large group of men ready to fight, and slowly whittled them down to 300. Why 300? Were the 300 the “best” warriors? Probably not. They were selected based on those who were not afraid and those who drank water in an unusual way. I heard one preacher suggest that a person who cups water into his hands and then laps the water like a dog is more vigilant than one who drinks water another way. I have my doubts… and such a view seems to undermine the main message of the story. God told Gideon in Judges 7:2, “You have too many men. I cannot deliver Midian into their hands, or Israel would boast against me, ‘My own strength has saved me.’” The purpose of the drinking was not to find the most valiant, the toughest, the most vigilant. Rather, it was to get the numbers down. If 300 people just stuck their heads in the water to drink, I expect they would have been chosen. God wasn’t looking for the strongest. He was not looking for a big army. He was not looking for a strong army. He wanted a small and weak force so that when they were victorious people would be forced to say, “Praise God, for He has delivered us from our enemy.”

If one looks at some of the most effective times in Church History, one must note the growth during the 1st three centuries of the church in the Roman Empire and neighboring lands. One must also consider the growth of the Chinese Church in the 20th century. Both grew without superstars or super-programs or super-anything. They were good people, faithfully doing small activities, reaching out from a position of weakness.

2 Much of this comes from a web article of mine, “Paradoxical Missions.” https://munsonmissions.org/2019/08/28/paradoxical-missions/

3 Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t (New York: HarperCollins, 2001). Technically, I am not using this book, only referencing the title. As should be pretty obvious, I am following the pattern of Eric Swanson of using more of an ethical understanding of “good” and “great” in contrast to Collins’ use of the words in terms of gradations of excellence.

4 Eric Swanson, “Great to Good Churches.” Christianity Today, Spring 2003. Online version accessible at https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/ 2003/spring/3.37.html

5 Mike Bonem, “Good to Great to Godly.” Christianity Today, Winter 2010. Online version accessible at https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/ 2010/winter/goodgreatgodly.html

6 Chip Ingram, Good to Great in God’s Eyes: 10 Practices Great Christians Have in Common (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007).

7 More on this topic in my post, “Great to Good Christians” at https://munsonmissions.org/2012/03/03/great-to-good-christians/

8 More on this in my post, “Praying for Weak Christian Missions” at https://munsonmissions.org/2013/07/12/weak-and-vulnerable-missions-its about-time-part-1/

9 More on this topic, “Dream Small,” at https://munsonmissions.org/ 2017/06/01/dream-small/