Nobody Becomes a Missionary Because They Like to Listen (Part 1)
My wife and I oversee a pastoral counseling center that trains ministers in Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE). I also teach some mission courses at a couple of seminaries here in the Philippines.
A saying (one I coined as far as I know) is “Nobody Becomes a Pastoral Because They Like to Listen.”
Similar thoughts could also be:
— Nobody becomes a Preacher because they like to listen.
— Nobody becomes a Theological Professor because they like to listen.
— Nobody becomes a Politician because they like to listen.
And as noted in the title:
— Nobody becomes a Missionary because they like to listen.
The fields listed above (pastoring, lecturing, politics, missions) are all fields where people join because they hope to influence others with words. And they tend to think (often wrongly) that influence is stronger if the communication is more unidirectional. Two-way communication or two-way learning does not tend to FEEL like having more influence.
A. Ego
Consider being a theology professor. I was listening to a podcast (Theology in the Raw) with Preston Sprinkle. He spoke of attending a seminary in California. While he found great value in aspects of his training, he felt that often the professors were focused on indoctrination of the seminary’s unique beliefs (premillennialism for example). He recalled one time a professor getting up in before the student body and challenging them along the lines of (heavily relying on my memory here), “How dare you think you know more about Christian doctrine than your professors!” Since this comment before the seminarians happened one day after Preston wrote a paper that COULD be interpreted as challenging Premillennialism, he wondered if he was the target of the comment– or at least one of the targets.
Of course, this is not unique. One of my colleagues had expressed appreciation of our school for the openness given to students to develop their own beliefs without indoctrination. From his experience, apparently this is a rare quality for Evangelical seminaries in the Philippines.
I have tried to fight the urge as a professor to speak much and listen little. I tell my students not to assume that I have all of the answers. I tell them that I am (literally) “wrong every day” and so if they think I am wrong about things, it is quite possible it is because I AM WRONG. I also note that my advanced degree in no way means that I should be seen as an expert. Rather, my advanced simply means that my guidance and insight should be taken seriously.
Looking at the previous passage, does this mean that I practice what I preach? Not really. I still tend to fall into the trap of dominating the talking in class. I also fall for the classic temptation of hearing other perspectives and immediately believing they are wrong.
B. Job Description.
A lecturer… lectures. They are not called listeners. Pastors are often called “preachers,” as opposed to listeners. Professors are called professors (professing their beliefs/doctrines) not listeners. Missionaries are often seen as evangelists, and this means “spreader of the good message.” Again, The term does not suggest the importance of listening. Even the term “Counselor”– involving a role where listening is often deemed as key— still, in terms of title, gives the impression of talking more than listening.
Listening is often seen as so passive… easy… even lazy, that there is no job that (that I can think of) where the title emphasizes the listening role. In fact, listening is so demeaned that when it is used in a positive or professional sense it needs an adjective, making the term— “Active Listening.”
C. Change Agent
A common label attached to missionaries is “Agent of Change.” Although sometimes the label “Agent of Preservation” is also included, change is generally seen as the more critical. In politics a similar thing arises. A politician often gets judged by how many changes are enacted. That makes no sense— leadership is about guiding on the right path, not simply a new path— but such change often implies that not only that others and situations change, but that one as the agent of change does not in himself or herself change.
One way that one can ensure that one does not change is to not listen to others.
Spiritual Warfare
Missions, especially, is seen as involved in spiritual warfare. This metaphor tends to undermine the value of listening. It draws into question the value of interreligious dialogue…. especially as it pertains to finding common ground or insight. For Evangelicals, especially, value is placed on debate, emphasizing differences, and “countering the lies of the enemy.” It is understandable that Missionaries are not used to thinking in terms of listening.
I will look at some positive aspects of listening… especially for missionaries… in Part 2.
