SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT: "I" is for Intentionally Indigenous
BT Staff
As we continue to examine our middle name — MISSIONARY — using an acrostic, we must ask, “Are we true to it?” Putting the shoe on the other foot makes us look at the matter objectively and honestly. I hope this will expose our points of strength, vulnerabilities and weaknesses. As “Missionary” Baptist churches, we are Motivated, Impactful, Servant-hearted and Strategic. (See previous articles in the June 26, July 10, July 17 and July 24 issues.) We are also Intentionally Indigenous.
One of the strengths of our missiological approach as BMA churches is our intentional, immersive, Indigenous changemakers/church planters. Other mission agencies have yet to come close to what the BMA has done on this front. We have faced challenges in the past with our efforts to support indigenous mission efforts in Russia and Africa. Thankfully, after better oversight and supervision in these situations, the funding was stopped so that the drain on missions’ resources was avoided. The problem was not in the paradigm nor the motive that got all our churches excited and many of them involved. The problem was simply in the management and oversight. The recent appointment of regional coordinators has helped tremendously. It puts boots on the ground to follow up, assess, report and participate in the decision-making process. What a difference the last few years have made.
The main strength of this approach is that ChangeMakers hit the ground running. No time is needed to learn the language, acclimate to the culture or immerse into the society. That is not to mention the plan’s extreme financial savings (good stewardship). Please do the math with me on the cost involved with sending a US missionary to the field — language school, moving to the field, residence permits (and hoops to jump through), establishing a household, buying a vehicle, years of basic-level communication or working through a translator. Should I go on? I think you get the idea. In the ChangeMakers program, BMA Global has been a pioneer, forward-thinking and avant-garde. If your church is not involved, your church is missing a lot.
But here is the first chink in the armor — when churches go on their own rather than operating within the associational dimension, they risk falling into traps that display a lack of experience and poor understanding of the mission field. Is anyone willing to admit that? I’m not sure.
Another chink in the armor of intentionality is when US missionaries focus only on church planting rather than training local church planters. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with planting a church, but it should not be the main focus. The ChangeMakers program is an amazing approach to sustainable missions and church planting, irrespective of the presence of a US missionary. Throughout recent history, political circumstances have often forced US missionaries out of certain countries. Changemakers can keep the work going. Our work in Ukraine is one such good example.
Being intentionally indigenous does not preclude the involvement of US missionaries, mission leadership or BMA churches — the involvement of our churches is crucial! Usually, the involvement, if any, has been financial. It would be interesting to know how many BMA churches support missions. But regardless, money does not sum up what involvement is or should be. A missionary friend of mine told me about one of his supporting churches. Their annual missions budget is three times their operational budget. That’s being intentional. They know what their biblical mandate is as a church of Jesus Christ. Maybe that means we, as churches, must reexamine our mission and vision.
Being intentional means being immersive. As a church, you jump into the sea of missions. You visit missionaries to encourage them. You provide manpower for projects, VBS, medical ministry and other events. You receive missionaries on furlough and provide an embracing environment for them. That is intentionality.
Can it be that sometimes missions is an afterthought that is only stoked by a visiting missionary or a missions event? Reviewing the book of Acts tells us the early church felt otherwise. Before Jesus ascended into Heaven, His last words were, “You shall be my witnesses…” (Acts 1:8). The concept of the church’s mission has evolved way beyond and away from that paradigm.
Please think about it honestly for a moment: How much do local, national or international missions figure into your church’s planning, budgeting and teaching? That will tell you in a minute how much your church is playing a role in fulfilling the words of Jesus. I am constantly reminded of how focused Jesus was on that. When we think that the church exists to marry our kids, bury our dead and entertain us on the weekend, we miss the point. In Luke 9, when He called someone to come follow Him, the man offered a very valid excuse, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father” (Luke 9:59 NKJV). But Jesus, focusing on the living who are dead in their trespasses and sins and about to die eternally, said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:60). Now, you can budget based on that!
As the title of this column suggests, putting the shoe on the other foot is very convicting as we look at the state of the church in America, especially our BMAA churches, today. When Paul heard the Macedonian call, he recognized the voice and the need because he was geared in that direction, and his heart was in tune with such voices. Would we? Can we?
I pray that the missionary call will become the music our ears and hearts can hear and that we become intentional as we focus on Jesus’ instructions to “…go and preach the kingdom of God,” while the world today is experiencing distress with no end in sight (Luke 21:25, Mark 13:7). May your church be plagued with intentionality and may the shoe on your other foot be a reminder.