In Missions, a Bad Idea is a Good Idea Taken Too Far

Yes, the above statement is not always true. There are bad ideas that are simply bad. But consider some good ideas in Christian missions:

It is good to evangelizeIt is good to church plantIt is good to discipleIt is good to meet felt needs of the peopleIt is good to address issues of social justiceIt is good to ensure the missionaries needs are being taken care ofIt is good to make the Bible available in the heart language of all peoples.It is good to have short-term mission teams.

The list could go on and on. But here is a Bad Idea:

Focus on only one good idea to the detriment of other good ideas.

This has happened in missions a lot. Some groups wanted to focus on “presence missions” to the extent that proclamation, church planting, and discipleship did not happen. Some were so enamored with the church growth movement, that only things that “bumped the numbers” (in terms of evangelized, baptized, or made members) would be seen as “real” missions. Some would argue that missions was ONLY about unreached people groups— and can’t seem to talk about anything except UPGs and UUPGs. Some say support local ministers, but in so doing push back against sending ANY people cross-culturally. In each, there is a core bit of good that is taken too far.

Let me give a specific example:

Back in 1998, the Overseas Leadership Team of a major Evangelical mission agency set up as its mission statement:

“We will facilitate the lost coming to saving faith in Jesus Christ by beginning and nurturing Church Planting Movements among all peoples.”

Is the above statement a ‘good idea’? Yeah, I think it is, Church Planting Movements (CPMs) are pretty cool, and it is nice to try to get them to happen. But I suppose the terms I use here, “pretty cool” and “nice,” might suggest that I have some mixed feelings. This is because while it is a Good Idea, it is a Terrible Mission Statement.

Letting Bing answer the question for me, “A mission statement is a short statement that explains why an organization exists, its overall goal, the product or service it provides, its primary customers, and its geographical region of operation.

Looking at the mission statement, the leadership team, and the hundreds of missionaries under its purview, are to have as an ultimate goal of leading people to Christ, but ONLY through establishing CPMs.

In practice, what did this mean? Well, when I came to the Philippines, as an independent missionary not under this or any mission agency, the above mission statement was still in the process of being implemented. There were still missionaries in the Philippines whose ministry did not directly align with this CPM thrust. Most missionaries of that agency serving in the Philippines did not fit this thrust for two reasons:

#1. The Philippines has a large Christian majority. The CPM thrust became associated with limiting mission work by this agency to where there was no truly viable indigenous church. Alternatively, they could also work where there were indigenous churches, but only where there was less than 2 percent of the people would could be labeled as “Evangelical.” (Apparently sheep-stealing of “non-Evangelicals” was okay.)

#2. The Philippines was used as a training ground for missionaries and Asian leaders, as well as a place for publishing, medical ministry, and more. These sound good… but they don’t sound like CPMs.

During my early years there I saw a lot of missionaries from that agency leave. Some moved to new missions grounds. Some left the agency entirely. Some felt betrayed, unsurprisingly, since the agency broke promises with some of these missionaries, as well as local partners, to do this. A lot of mission-owned properties suddenly were up for sale. Myself and a fellow missionary colleague sought to buy a nice property that agency owned. We were planning to do something good training Christian leaders and supporting Christian Community Development— both good but decidedly unrelated to CPMs— and we were part of the same denomination. As such, it seemed like we were a good fit to buy and take over. However, the price was too high. It was too high because the mission board decided to base such sales not on future ministry or partnerships but on finances— getting money back to funnel into their CPM work. Nothing wrong with that, and I am actually glad now that we did not get the property, but this was consistent. Decisions were made based on achieving their own new mission statement, NOT on considering God’s mission in the Philippines.

I recall, somewhere around 2006 maybe, hearing the head of that Philippine component of that agency speaking to a large group of Filipino Christian leaders… talking, almost joyfully, about his role in getting the mission agency out of the Philippines. He saw his job as getting everyone out and shutting the door behind him. I found it dumbfounding to see how out of touch this guy was with the attitude and values of that audience. While they were not necessarily against that agency continuing to transfer expertise and structures over to local control, they did not want to see the group gone, and certainly did not want things shutdown or transferred without evaluating issues of ministerial viability and missional value.

A decade later, things really began to change. In fact, I found it rather funny when I was at a gathering with a number of missionaries from that agency now serving in the Philippines, shortly after the worst of COVID was over. Almost every one of them when I talked to them said (almost word for word)— “This is the New ________. Things are not like they were.” I heard that so many times, I finally asked one of them if that was something that they were coached to say. He said, No, it is just true. They have tossed aside that old mission statement and are trying to rebuild what was broken down.

Of course, there was a lot to rebuild. There were definitely some hurt feelings, and distrust to overcome. (Some of that still exists.) They have done, I think, a lot to move forward with local partners again. Still, that particular agency likes to come up with new initiatives and strategies— sending them out of the US and into the rest of the world. I am still waiting for some new leader to come along and decide that some “good idea” is all they should be doing. Then things will start all over again.

CPMs are fine… they are good… they may even be great. But missions is a lot broader than that. The mission agency I am talking about has hundreds of (actually more than 1000) missionaries. They have traditionally been a “full-service” mission agency. Truthfully, they probably would do well in spinning off more ministries. No one can do all and be all— especially in Christian missions. But spinning off should never mean moving to one single strategy.

In missions, at least, a bad idea is a good idea taken too far.