Mission Agencies: Choose wisely

One of the things mission supporters pay too little attention to is the agency that a missionary is or intends to serve under. Mission agencies vary widely in the due diligence they use in vetting potential staff, clarity of direction, quality of strategy, level of empowerment or control, and personnel health. Not all agencies are equally healthy, effective or empowering.

Because of the investment we make in missionaries, it is critical that we evaluate both those we support carefully as well as the organization with which they serve. If either are substandard, the investment is problematic and should be reconsidered.


The most important thing to consider is whether they have made the shift from the Black and White to the Color World - as described in The Nine Shifts. This will tell you much about whether they are leveraged for significant influence in today's world. 

Here are some other markers of good mission organizations:

·  They vet potential staff with great care and are ready and willing to say no or not yet if there are issues with spiritual, emotional, relational or skill health.

·  They deal proactively with health issues of their staff in a redemptive way.

·  They have clarity of direction that is understandable and makes sense.

·  They place people on healthy teams for maximum health and synergy.

·  They stress ongoing learning and education for all their staff.

·  All staff operate with an annual ministry plan and have monthly coaching meetings with their supervisor.

·  They operate with healthy, empowering and strategic leaders.

·  They mandate that their staff raise enough support to ensure that they have a decent standard of living, have adequate health care and are putting aside money for retirement (for long term staff).

·  They want to work closely with the local church when there are personnel issues.

·  They love to work with local churches to help them achieve their mission vision with good missiological practices.

·  They are committed to strategies of multiplication and are developing, empowering and releasing healthy national leaders wherever they work.

·  They are deeply committed to personal, team and leader health.

·   They are innovative, entrepreneurial and empowering of staff.

The Nine Critical Shifts that must take place in missions today

Many mission agencies are still living in the old, pre-globalized world paradigms. The world has changed around them, but they have not changed. I believe that there are nine critical shifts that mission agencies and churches engaged in missions need to make to minister effectively in today's world context. They are also the nine shifts ReachGlobal has made over the past eight years.

Shift One: Moving from being primarily doers to being primarily equippers of national workers. It is no longer about what we, as missionaries, can do ourselves but what we can help others do in their context. Increasingly, we must stand behind and alongside national workers as equippers, coaches, and encouragers rather than in front of them.

This is reflective of what Jesus intended for the church. Paul writes in Ephesians 4:11-12 that “Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.” Often, we hire pastors to do the work of ministry for us when, in reality, their job is primarily to equip all of God’s people to be involved in ministry in line with their gifting and wiring.

The application of this in missions is that missionaries are often trainers and equippers of others to help them do what they can do better than us in their context. Thus, in many cases, missionaries are no longer primarily church planters and evangelists but are equippers and trainers of nationals in theology, church planting, holistic ministries, and those ministries that contribute to the growth of the church.

This leads naturally to Shift Two: Moving from being in charge to equal partnerships with nationals where neither party is subsumed under the other and where each retains their autonomy. The day of colonial and paternalistic missions is over. It is a remnant of the black-and-white world. Equal partnerships are the coinage of the color world where each party, missions, and nationals brings different skills and abilities to the table for mutual cooperation.

It is in partnership with national movements that are orthodox in their theology and missional in their activity, bringing the most significant leverage and synergy. This is a natural outcome of the first shift: We are present to help the church grow, and that is done in equal partnerships where each party brings something of value to the ministry table.

Shift three is a natural outcome of the first two. Moving from owning and controlling to a philosophy of “we own nothing, control nothing, and count nothing as ours.” This is a servant mentality that says we are here to serve you in helping you plant churches, develop holistic ministries, and evangelize your people. We will serve you, not control you. Those agencies that serve with an open hand are magnets for indigenous believers to partner with.

Living out a non-controlling ministry philosophy is a prerequisite for partnerships today. It also models the ministry model of Christ and the Apostle Paul and the spirit of humility that Paul speaks of in Philippians 2:5-11. This is sometimes a challenge for Western missions, who are used to being “in control” rather than at a table of equal partners.

Shift four. Embracing the reality that missions are moving from Western Missionaries to Global missionaries. The future is all people reaching all people. Increasingly, missionaries will be coming from the majority world, and our willingness to invite them to the table on our teams and within our structures or to partner with them becomes a test of a servant philosophy.

This also means that we must work to encourage and equip our national partners to become sending entities rather than simply receiving entities. When national movements become engaged in the Great Commission, amazing things happen, and they participate in the joy of seeing new areas reached for Christ.

Shift Five: Moving from dependencies to self-sufficiency wherever possible. Helping indigenous partners grow out of their dependencies on the West by realizing what they bring to the table and by assisting them to fund their efforts from their context wherever possible lifts them up, gives them dignity, and allows us to partner as equals rather than dependents. Dependent partners cannot be equal partners.

This often means helping national partners find ways to finance their ministries more independently and partnering together in places where that is not fully possible.

Shift Six, Moving from addition to multiplication. This is consistent with shift one, from doers to equippers. It is not about what we can do but what we can help others do. While we must often start with addition, basic evangelism, and discipleship, our mindset should always be to move as quickly as possible toward multiplication strategies that allow us to leverage our efforts for the Gospel.

Shift seven, Moving from competition to cooperation, gets more personal for many of us. We are used to doing our thing. We have taught our national partners to do their thing. In the process, we have created ministry silos and denominational entities that work alone in relative weakness rather than figuring out how to work together to propagate the Gospel. We are better together than alone.

This is a time in history when we have a unique opportunity to work together rather than separately for the sake of the Gospel. The world's needs are too high to tackle alone, and we need one another. It is possible if we look at what we have in common instead of concentrating on those things we don't.

This leads me to Shift eight. Moving from an emphasis on my brand to His brand. Jesus did not die for my brand of the church, the EFCA. He died for His bride, the church. That is why we no longer plant EFC churches but seek to plant healthy, indigenous, self-supporting, reproducing, and interdependent churches. The brand is not as important as the spread of the Gospel. At the end of the day, Jesus is not concerned about brand names. He is, however, concerned about His Bride and the spread of the Gospel.

Shift nine. Moving from agency-based missions to church/agency synergy. The vision for missions belongs first to the local church, not to mission agencies. Missions that thrive in the future will be those that serve the mission vision of the local church, domestically and internationally. We are servant organizations. In the globalized world, we no longer have a monopoly on the great commission, and local churches will increasingly go their own way if we do not serve them well.

Let me illustrate these shifts with a real-life example. Six years ago, I met a young couple in Manila from a closed country in South East Asia. They had just finished their degrees and were heading back to work in the complex context of a brutal regime in a profoundly Buddhist context. I knew this individual had leadership stuff in him, and we developed a relationship over the next several years.

Sometime later, a cyclone hit this fragile country. I received an email saying that he had spent all his money providing rice and water to those affected who were without food and homes. He asked if there was any way we could help. 

Over the next several years, we helped my friend develop a ministry team that has rebuilt bamboo homes and lives, done evangelism and church planting where there are few believers, trained pastors, and developed leaders. He is one of the few leaders in this country that works across denominational lines. We helped him develop three businesses, providing funds for his team to fund his efforts. Regularly, we coach, mentor, and train him and his team. They have formed a ministry to train leaders and plant churches nationwide regardless of their brand.

This country is a classic example of the result of propagating our brands over the years. I have been up to the northern mountain village where missionaries in years past liked to live. I won’t forget that town. We landed on an airstrip with animals wandering on it. The only hotel we could stay in as foreigners charged us twenty dollars a night for lousy food, no mosquito netting, and about one hour of electricity daily. I was particularly enamored by the airport security when we left. The airport had no electricity, but we still had to walk through the non-functioning security machine.

Here is the wild thing. You will find every denomination known to mankind in this town and many denominations not yet known to mankind as the original denominations split and formed new groups. It is a hoot to drive through this town in this Buddhist country. All the streets have biblical names, and you pass building after building of different denominations. Here in a country that desperately needs the Gospel, you find an amazing number of small, weak denominations that don’t work together. We trained them well, and they followed our example.

But think about this: In equipping my friend, we have lived out shift one, moving from being primarily doers to primarily equippers. In partnering with him, we live out shift two, from being in charge to equal partnerships. In helping him develop his ministry, we live out shift three, that we own nothing, control nothing, or count nothing as ours. In helping him build his own team, we live out shift four of raising up indigenous missionaries.

We live out shift five by helping him become self-sufficient rather than dependent. In empowering his team, we live out shift six of multiplication. In mentoring him to work with multiple Bible-based denominations, we live out shift seven of cooperation rather than competition and shift eight that it is not about our brand but the Gospel.

In connecting my friend to churches in the States and Asia interested in reaching this nation, we live out shift nine of agency/church synergy. In every way, it is a win for him, us, the Gospel, and his nation. Start multiplying that one example globally, and you see the amazing potential for the Gospel.

Helpful and wise words from a veteran missionary to the US Church

I have been asking our staff for feedback on what they wish their supporting churches understood about missions today. One of these was posted on July 5 and was read by a huge number of people. This response also comes from a younger generation of missionaries who are grappling with the changing context of missions globally as well as in the church in the United States. His insights are helpful.

The reason I share these insights is that unless we get the dance right between local churches, missionaries they support and those they are serving internationally we create complications for the mission endeavor. Dialogue and careful thought about how we do what we do in missions is deeply needed today. Here are his thoughts.

"Their sincere generosity (money, short-term teams, etc.) can actually do unintended harm by creating dependency and undermining local sustainability (as addressed very well in Toxic Charity and When Helping Hurts). Not all financial gifts or short-term teams are helpful to local ministry, and they should not be expected to direct or dictate the ministry of a long-term missionary.

"Different regions of the world have different challenges that need to be addressed differently. One size really doesn’t fit all.

"Being involved in regional multiplication as a facilitator, trainer, coach can actually be a MORE EFFECTIVE way to church plant, even if the missionary isn’t involved in one specific church plant as a leader.

"Short-term teams simply do not have the same impact as on-the-ground missionaries or local partners and such short-term teams often do not adequately understand the long-term needs of a given people

"Mission committees have a tendency to shift directions depending on current leadership and members’ interests; the result is that long-term missionaries can be left with unstable partnerships with U.S. churches.

"Local church accountability needs to happen in the context of a caring, committed relationship that believes the best, not just as an administrative task to make sure missionaries don’t screw up.

"Because of the potential for missionary mobility in the modern world, I would encourage church’s to focus more on supporting gifted missionaries instead of supporting people based on their specific location.

"Not everything that looks green is healthy or sustainable (much of Latin America’s evangelical growth).

"Places with little spiritual fruit need missionaries and patience (Western Europe and the Islamic World). There is no harvest if there is no sowing.

"Good ministries and teams require supported missionaries in leadership. This is not just an administrative waste.

"Most missionaries are not low-level “interns” but highly trained and experienced professionals who are a tremendous resource to the America church as partners.

"Let us know what gifts and unique skills/resources you have available within your congregation. Then we can better know ways to partner that will really matter."

See also
Sticker shock in missions
We will not support you as a missionary because...
Missionary support team building: very tough work
Holistic missions: Cautions and opportunities

Leaders and honesty

If you are a leader, this article will cause you to think!
Are we completely honest leaders? 

Hidden agendas and passive aggressive behavior

Have you ever worked with someone who is passive aggressive? Probably all of us have. What lies behind this behavior are hidden agendas - a desire to get somewhere on some issue that is kept hidden rather than stated up front. What is unhealthy about the behavior is not the agenda itself - all of us have them, but the fact that an individual is not willing to be honest about their agenda with others.


Hidden agendas and passive aggressive behavior are actually a form of dishonesty that destroys trust. It is dishonest in that the actual agenda of an individual is unstated and hidden. Therefore it is not possible for others to address it. Either they must guess at the agenda or they figure it out from behaviors but it is still difficult to put on the table because it is unstated. 


In our organization we have a principle called Robust Dialogue where any issue can be put on the table with the exception of personal attacks or hidden agendas. The reason there cannot be hidden agendas is that you cannot have honest dialogue when they are present. What you actually have is a surface dialogue with other issues underlying the conversation that remain unstated.


Hidden agendas are often a way of trying to outmaneuver or undermine another individual without stating it. When this happens on church boards or teams it creates an underlying conflict in the group which may or may not be recognized but it is surely felt. 


I was once called by a pastor who had a former leader in his church pushing him to take a sabbatical. He and the board were thinking that maybe it was a good idea. After asking a few questions it became clear that this individual had a history of undermining the senior pastor. 


In dialogue it became clear that he most likely had a hidden agenda in his suggestion - getting the senior pastor out of town so that he could undermine his leadership. He clearly had an agenda that he was not stating and that was therefore dishonest. Rather than stating his issues up front he was maneuvering from behind. 


This is why healthy organizations make it clear that in their culture they will not tolerate hidden agendas and call people on it when they exhibit passive aggressive behavior or there is indication that there is an agenda behind the stated agenda. We are too lax in allowing behaviors that are toxic and unhealthy. Rather we ought to set a standard and then hold people to them. It may be something you need to talk with your organization, board or team about.

Flexibility and the art of negotiation

An important trait for leaders as well as team and board members is that of flexibility: the ability to live with a certain ambiguity and the willingness to put aside one's personal preferences when necessary for the good of the group. 


Inflexible leaders (or team or board members) come off as autocratic and often as arrogant (whether they intend to or not) because they need to have their way. Their thinking is black and white and they are willing to die on hills not worth dying on. It creates great frustration for people around them who cannot figure out what the inflexibility is about.


With inflexibility comes a critical spirit because alternate ideas or choices are by nature the wrong ones. Thus, creative dialogue is stifled, killing healthy robust dialogue at the best and creating conflict at the worst as others push for a different and common solution.


I will never knowingly put an inflexible, black and white individual on a team because it will hurt the team. Nor will I put such an individual into leadership because they cannot lead collaboratively. In fact, inflexible leaders would be counterculture and destructive to our organization that is highly empowered and collegial. 


There are certainly black and white issues - integrity and sin for instance. But much of life is gray - neither black and white - where we make choices from among many options, none of which are either right or wrong. They are simply choices. In my fifties, I am far more flexible than I was in my twenties. I am less sure about many things but more sure about a few things. 


If you struggle with inflexibility, ask yourself these questions:

• If we do this, what is the worst that could happen?
• Am I willing to humble myself to the will of the group?
• Can I trust that the Holy Spirit will speak through the group?
• Why do I need to have my way?
• Why am I anxious about this decision?

Negotiation is the art of dialogue around those issues where we come at them from a different perspective than others. An inflexible individual tends not to dialogue but to push for their way. Flexible individuals are able to have a conversation around their differences and in the process usually come to a solution that is actually better than any of the individual solutions proposed. 

Ironically, the willingness to talk through differences often gets you closer to what you would have wished. That dialogue is actually negotiation if done with an open spirit.

Can I disagree with you and still keep my relationship with you?

One of the signs of emotional maturity is the ability to disagree with someone and still remain connected relationally. All too often, Christian leaders are unable to do this because they are threatened by those who do not agree with them. I have seen numerous cases, for instance, where a leader or member of a church is marginalized by the senior pastor when that individual disagrees with them.


Leaders who are unable to maintain relationship with those who disagree with them usually divide people into two camps: those that are for me and those that are against me. To live in the first camp usually means to agree with their leader. One gets moved to the second camp when one disagrees with their leader. It is a black and white, for and against world view that damages relationships, hurts the leadership potential of the leader who chooses to marginalize others and divides organizations and congregations. 


Often, church boards are divided by this thinking as the pastor divides in his mind and therefore his relationships those that are for him and those that are against him. It is a toxic behavior.


Here is an interesting question: What lies behind this kind of marginalization of someone who disagrees? I would suggest two answers: insecurity and pride.


Insecurity compels many leaders to need to be right. Anything that challenges their rightness becomes a threat and thus their marginalization of those who disagree with them. The need to be right and its resulting behaviors often masks great insecurity.


Pride and at its worst, narcissism, can also be at the root of this behavior. By definition, a narcissist must be right and anyone who challenges their world view is disregarded, marginalized (ignored) or becomes the enemy. To put it in Facebook terms they are summarily defriended.


This is obviously a tricky issue to confront as the moment one does, one is likely to be marginalized. Boards, because of their authority, can, if they are willing, confront the behavior of a leader. If he or she responds, it will be the kindest thing they ever did. If the issue is narcissism, it is unlikely that there will be any change and the board then has a deeper problem to deal with.


All of us, however, should ask ourselves the question as to whether we exhibit this kind of behavior. It divides, assigns ill motives and hurts teams and organizations. Lets make sure that we are not guilty.