If We Don’t Use the Term “Missionary,” What Should We Replace It With?
A few years ago, one of my daughters was working as a caregiver for a Jewish family. This family treated her very well. But when they found out that her parents were “missionaries” their response was immediate and perhaps best described as “distaste.” They gave a verbal response that I don’t remember now, but it was clear that their distaste was from their assumption that missionaries seek to push their religion on other people. This assumption is certainly understandable. In Celia and my case it does not really apply since we focus on leader development of ministers (pastors, missionaries, counselors, and such) in a cross-cultural setting. However, missionaries commonly are involved in proselytization, and I am not going to pretend that Celia and I never are involved in that activity.
The point in the story is simply that the term “missionary” has some baggage. Some of the baggage is a bit out of touch, such as issues with the historical connection between missionaries and colonization. For some others the baggage may be more associated with cultural imperialism. For the family above, it was with proselytization. Some of these connections may be commonly true (proselytization), sometimes true (cultural imperialism), and sometimes, “It’s Complicated” (colonization). In some places, the term “missionary” is seen very negatively, and the role might even be illegal.
This begs the question of whether the term “missionary” is passe’. I struggle with this myself… but the struggle comes from multiple directions.
Direction #1. From the outside, the term missionary may be looked at negatively. For example, I teach in a seminary and I am the administrator of a pastoral counseling center. If I say that I am a teacher, or a professor, or an administrator, or a counselor, it is likely that I will be judged more favorably from the outside than if I call myself a missionary. If I call myself an engineer (because that was my “real job” years ago) or say that I am a retiree (since I am 60 and don’t have an employee salary) these also may be looked at more favorably.
Direction #2. From the inside, there is strong pressure to limit what is called a missionary. Some try to limit it to “pioneering” roles. Others to evangelization or church planting. Yet others want to limit it to clearly cross-cultural or international roles. Since I am not a pioneer missionary, and have sporadic (at best) involvement in evangelization or church planting, and my wife is serving in the country in which she was born and raised, there are many reasons why some would not call us missionaries. Sometimes it can get confusing. I was recently at a missions conferences where missions was almost completely about people going to work with UPGs and UUPGs (unreached people groups and unreached unengaged people groups). Missionaries were almost assumed to be those who do pioneering work. What made it strange was that almost all of the missionaries associated with the organization sponsoring the conference were involved in activities that don’t meet the definition of pioneering. Some were arguably not even cross-cultural in their primary work (such as diaspora missions). This makes it very confusing.
So if we don’t use the term “missionary” what should we use?
A. One might use the word “apostle.” This is simply the English term based on the Greek that means missionary. This, however, is a bad choice since over the centuries the term has drifted from the original idea to being one who has (ecclesiastical) power and authority. In my mind, that is almost the opposite of what a missionary is supposed to be.
B. A term I had not heard before until a couple of weeks ago was “Message Bearer.” This was promoted by Ryan Shaw of GMMI. I don’t have a problem with this, even though it does sound like it got filtered through a marketing committee. Frankly, I am expressing concern about how the term “missionary” looks in terms of marketing, so I should not complain about an attempt to grab a term with more cachet. I think it is a strong candidate.
C. I sometimes like the term “cross-cultural minister.” For some people, the key thing that makes a missionary a missionary is that they minister in a cross-cultural setting. With that in mind, the term fits. Of course, some don’t serve in a cross-cultural setting. And even some that do may focus more on diaspora or expat ministry. For someone like me (teaching, counseling, and administrating) in the Philippines, the term may be quite apt.
D. Can focus less on an overall title, but choose to describe based on function. Perhaps one might say that one is a “church planter,” “discipler,” “medical doctor,” “community developer,” “business owner,” “translator,” “teacher,” “counselor,” and more. In many cases this may be the best answer since it also often the most accurate.
I don’t have the answer. I usually go with choice D. With outsiders I usually say, “I teach at a seminary.” They already know that I am foreign. They know that “seminary” in the Philippines means that I serve in the realm of religion. Thus, I am still saying that I am a missionary, but doing so in a way that gives more clarity to my role in the Philippines. In churches, or missions settings, I will commonly describe myself as a missionary.
For others, I think they must decide for themselves.
