Does Video Communication and the Internet Make International Missions Unnecessary?

Most real-world “Yes/No” questions have three good answers (in my view):

Yes, but…No, but…I don’t know, but here are some of my thoughts…

For the question above, the correct answer is “No, but…” and that answers fills out into ‘No, but it is a helpful tool.” Here are a few points in this.

Some types of missions requires physical or direct social interaction. Planting a church in an international or cross-cultural setting, pretty much requires boots on the ground. One may be able to evangelize online (with some people at least). One may be able to disciple online (some people). However, (ignoring cyber-churches), church planting is intensely personal and interactive. I did “pastor” a church in the Philippines completely online for several months due to the pandemic. However, most of that time I was in the Philippines, not my home country. And to say that I was pastoring the church is a bit of a stretch. It is better to say I was maintaining it. Of course, church planting is something quite different. Doing doing medical missions is very hands-on, along with most social ministries. Even ministries that can be done online is aided by face-to-face. I do a lot of work online. The area that my wife and I focus on in Missions is “Leadership Development.” Another term, one I like less, is “Ministerial Training.” This is an area where online communication, both audio and video. I teach some courses online. My wife does some counseling online. I can supervise theses and dissertations online. We can hold organizational meetings online. We travel back and forth between the US and Philippines. It is nice that we can continue a course even after crossing an ocean. But there is a cost. Most prefer face-to-face or hybrid training… unless the circumstances make it too awkward. There is always some loss in communication. I learned this working at Northrop-Grumman many years ago. We would send emails to people on the other side of the country. We would have phone calls. We would even have audio or video-conferencing (when that was still a fairly novel thing). We found that when things were important, people from different sides REALLY NEED TO BE IN THE SAME ROOM. Also, in trainings, some methods like group work are hindered by the physical disconnection. It is hard to be bi-cultural when one lives mono-culturally. I am not a master of being bi-cultural. I live in one of the most English-friendly and American-friendly cities in Asia, serving as teacher in a school that uses English exclusively. The city is very cosmopolitan/globalistic— a bit of a melting pot or tossed salad of cultures. Nevertheless, when I see mono-cultural Americans come here to Baguio, very often (although not always) I realize how I have connected with my two homes— Philippines and the United States. This bi-cultural bridge helps greatly in mission work. Those who are raised monoculturally tend to see the world in an extremely distorted way. That is absolutely a problem.The concept of “The Ministry of Presence” is real. In some sense you cannot show that you truly care unless you are willing to relocate yourself. Jesus, Philip the Evangelist, Barnabas, and Paul showed that they cared by going to the people they were trying to reach. Paul and Luke, especially, wrote a lot. But talk, in any form, is a bit cheap in comparison to presence. If you want to convince someone you care—- you show up.

So the answer is, “No. Video communication and the Internet does NOT make International missions unnecessary, BUT it is a useful tool.” Done right, it can enhance or fill in the gaps in ministry that happens when one is limited to being present.