The "Harvest Cycle" and Short-Term Missions
Posted by David Rogers in Church & Missions
Anyone who knows anything about farming knows that, in order to reap a harvest, there are various stages you must pass through first. It should not surprise us that, when both Jesus and Paul, on various occasions, compare Christian evangelism and discipleship to the agricultural process, many of the same principles hold true for both.
The “harvest cycle” for pioneer missions usually includes the following stages:
* Choosing an appropriate field in which to work
* Removing the “rocks” of spiritual resistance
* Plowing the ground and preparing the spiritual soil
* Sowing the seed of the Gospel message
* Watering and cultivating the seed that has been sown
* Reaping the harvest
* Conserving the harvest
* Maintaining the ground for on-going planting, cultivation, and harvest
At various stages of the “harvest cycle,” there are generally different activities that prove, in the long run, to yield the most fruit. Those who labor in a particular field over an extended period of time, whether long-term missionaries or national believers, generally have a broader perspective and understanding of the work than those who come alongside them, for shorter periods of time, to help out. Sometimes, however, short-term workers come in assuming they know more than what they really do, and, as a result, end up causing more harm than help.
Imagine, for instance, in physical agriculture, someone coming into a newly planted field, in which the crops have not yet gone through the process of cultivation and ripening, and attempting to reap everything they can. The results for the harvest, from a long-term perspective, would be disastrous. The same thing can happen, on the mission field, when the Gospel is presented without adequate spiritual preparation, and appropriate contextualization of the message so that it is understood in a way that truly makes sense to the locals.
Around the world, different mission fields find themselves at different stages along the harvest cycle. As a result, the work of the long-term missionary in one field may be vastly different from the work of another long-term missionary in another field. The problem, many times, is when short-term workers “parachute” in, assuming that what may have worked somewhere else in a different context is sure to work just as well where you are.
In Spain, for example, the most dangerous workers can often be those who have had previous experience in Latin America. The language is the same (for the most part), the religious background in both places is Roman Catholic, and the culture, at least from a North American point of view, seems to be similar as well. But, many times, the missiological methods that function best in Latin America fall flat on their face in Spain.
Why is this the case? One of the main reasons is that the “harvest cycle” in Spain is at a different stage than it is in Latin America. Though I have not ever lived in Latin America myself, from what I understand, many (not all) of the contexts in which missionaries and short-term workers work there are what we would call “harvest fields.” That is, they are at a place in the “harvest cycle” in which the harvest has been cultivated, and is ripe and ready to reap. Spain, however, at least for the present, and among most people group segments, is far from what you might call a “harvest field.”
Actually, though, some of the best workers in Spain have come from Latin America. Without a doubt, their knowledge of the language, and innate understanding of Catholicism and latino culture, can be an advantage in Spain. But, the ones who have made the most impact, over the long haul, are those who have not come in assuming everything was going to be just like it was back in Latin America. The ones who come in “ready to conquer the world,” however, are usually the ones who fall the hardest.
All of this is one of the main reasons it is important for short-term workers to network and cooperate with long-term missionaries and national believers. It is also a reason why, many times, it is more strategic for churches to be involved in a few on-going projects, developing long-term relationships with those on a particular field, than in many different “hit-and-miss,” one-time endeavors.
A lot of times, when you have been somewhere, and seen something work, and you come somewhere else, and things don’t seem to be working all that well, you are tempted to start telling everyone about how it worked in such-and-such a place and such-and-such a time. And it may well be that people with experiences in other places have a lot to teach that can be very valuable. But, usually, in order to gain the right to teach, it is necessary to demonstrate first that you yourself are teachable. Sometimes, I have even seen how short-term workers can be more strategic than some long-term missionaries. This is usually because the short-term workers know they don’t know what they are doing, and are willing to learn, while the long-termers think they have it all figured out already.
One of the cultural virtues, and, at the same time, vices, we have as Americans, is a happy-go-lucky approach to things, thinking there’s a ready-made 4-step solution to just about any problem we might find. Certainly, we have accomplished a lot, as a country, because we have not let circumstances hold us back, and have ventured out to see what we might see, and do what we might do.
Cross-cultural ministry, however, is full of surprises. Appropriate and effective contextualization is many times more complicated than it appears on the surface. And, in order to be the best that we can for the glory of our Lord, and the advance of his Kingdom, we need to be ready, at times, to lay aside our cultural preferences and ways of doing things, and take on the role of learners.



David,
A most insightful and timely post.
Here’s your “money” quote: “…many times, it is more strategic for churches to be involved in a few on-going projects, developing long-term relationships with those on a particular field, than in many different “hit-and-miss,” one-time endeavors.”
Obviously, there are still churches out there that look at their short-term missions as something akin to a “tour-guide service.” But I hope those numbers are becoming fewer.
Local (North American) churches do, indeed, need to make long-term commitments to particular people groups in particular areas. I know that we have discussed it before, but I recommend something like the REAP Strategy employed by the two IMB teams in Peru (REAP North & REAP South). It involves local churches adopting “micro” people groups for a four-year time span.
Our partnership to reach the Panao Quechua people begins in January. Our first team will be a “scout” team, sort of “spying out the land.” Their mission is to locate all of the population centers, locate believers, find out about the RC church and the priests, who leads the festivals, etc… No actual evangelism, just gathering information. Then in March we are following with a veterinary team to four locations chosen by the scout team. Our vet will be accompanied by an outreach team. They will work alongside local believers to do evangelism. I will go down in June to do evangelism and church planting training. Then a team will be going in October to build upon and solidify the work from the first three teams. And we begin the next step in our strategy in 2009.
It takes much time and effort. It takes a local church becoming willing to step up and actually be the “church planting strategists” for that people group. And it takes leadership trained in the notion and process of church planting. I fear that may be a critical missing element among our churches here in the states. I worry that our typical pastoral aversion to church planting may have negative consequences in our efforts to facilitate CP movements overseas.
Anyhow … I’m rambling.
But I’m looking forward to the discussion on this post today.
Amen and amen.
David, I really appreciate this post. I gives great insight into, not just the cross-culture ministry efforts and thinking of US going THERE, but those of THEM coming HERE.
As America gets more and more refugees from other countries, we can learn much from this post. They are coming to our culture with their culture and they can get a bit turned-around as to how to adapt to ours when they own theirs and are borrowing from ours.
In America we have our little people groups of cultures. In New England we had Italian, Greek, Puerto Rican, German and a multiplicity of others. They tended to group together in communities as if they have their own little countries within our country. And we as SB have gone in and tried to minister to and reach these groups. Due to wars and persecution in other countries, we now have sub-countries (if you would) residing in our country. Korean, Chinese, Haitian, Vietnamese, Somalian, Iraqi, Mexican and on an on.
Your very timely post speaks well to we who try to reach the world for our Lord. Thank you. Gives me much to think about. selahV
)
(as if I didn’t have enough.
David, I forgot to say what first provoked in me the most amount of thinking from your post.
Preparing the soil is vital and the most important part of the process of expecting any kind of harvest. Seeds can sprout from the worst of soils, but they simply cannot produce like those planted in rich, fertilized, enriched soil. Blessings. selahV
Great article David. I especially like the part at the end where you point out that short-termers can be very effective and teach a lot but only if they LISTEN. Good advice for all of us.
Geoff,
As I’ve written before (I think on your blog, perhaps), I’m looking forward to hearing how your partnership with the REAP project goes. It sounds like a really exciting opportunity.
SelahV,
I agree with you. I think the “harvest cycle” principles are transferrable to just about any context. The big difference for many churches in the States is that they have been operating in the “maintaining the ground for on-going planting, cultivating, and harvest” stage for as long as anyone can remember. That is one of the good things about church planting, like Geoff and Roger are doing. It makes you think about evangelism and discipleship from a different perspective.
The truth is, as I see it, much of American society is fast becoming a pioneer field, in the sense of needing to work through the initial phases of removing the rocks, plowing, and sowing, before being able to reap with any real results. If I understand correctly, that is one of the main points a lot of the “missional” movement people are making.
Strider,
Thanks for the support from a different part of the world. How have you seen some positive results from short-termers? My guess would be that you are mainly in a “rock removing” and “plowing” stage there in “Middle Earth.”
Right on!!!
At my church in Durham, NC, we are trying to focus on involvement overseas on a few areas, favoring repeat visits to the same national church/IMB missionary (usually from our church).
I agree that this long term focus may yeild the most fruit. Less up front, but more over time.
Lay people also get more invovled in people’s personal lives, communicating throughout the year. They are less likely to do something rash that may damage a growing relationship.
Great Post!
David, while I agree with many of your statements about short term missions, and I understand each missionary is working in the feild God has planted them, the tone of the article glares with many disturbing undercurrents that have infected mission agencies around the globe.
Our experience with short term missions has consistently met with jaded missionaries who “Know” so much about “their” mission feild, that they unwittingly disregard the call of God in another persons life, including the indigenous believers! I have been sorely dissapointed with the segregational and cowboy attitude of many full time foriegn missionaries as much as any novice believer we have ever taken.
Our people go on mission to follow Christ as he leads them. They are just as much “Missionaries” as much as a full time IMB missionary. God is doing harvest work in their life too. And as God leads them to help, they have a role to fill in Gods Harvest.
Most missionaries we have worked with don’t take seriously working to develop a mission outreach program that is geared to assist and grow the people of the CHURCHES that support them! That is the only reason mission agencies exist! The Church is the sending organization for missions. The mission agency is to assist the church in mission outreach. Antioch had no cooperative mission agency. If the agency and those who work for it cease to earnestly assit other believers in experiencing mission work, what are they doing out there? And why are we supoorting them?
Brian,
Thanks for your comment. I think that at the core, we are in agreement about a lot of things. I agree about the problem of “segregational and cowboy attitudes” on the part of whomever it may be, long-termers or short-termers. And I agree that each and every one of us, as members of the Body of Christ, has a vital role to play in the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Also, mission agencies do indeed exist because believers from local churches bind together in order to more strategically contribute towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
However, I think it is important to remember that the fundamental objective of world missions is the fulfillment of the Great Commission; that is, to make disciples of all the people groups in the world, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey what Jesus taught us. Mobilizing and helping the members of the churches that support missions to play their part in the task is an important means toward the fulfillment of the task. But it should not, in my understanding, take precedence over the fulfillment of the task itself. Whenever we send out workers, we should always ask if we are being the best possible stewards of the resources God has entrusted into our hands for the fulfillment of the task. This includes long-termers, short-termers, and the support we send to nationals.
Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly. But when you say, “If the agency and those who work for it cease to earnestly assit other believers in experiencing mission work, what are they doing out there? And why are we supoorting them?”, I have to ask what that says about the missionaries who faithfully ministered overseas for several centuries of “modern-day Protestant missions” (e.g. since Zinzendorf and Carey). Are you saying because they didn’t work with the churches that sent them out to mobilize short-term workers that their work was not biblical or valid?
For the most part, the phenomenon of short-term overseas missions is a recent development. I think that, in general, it is a great thing that many people have been able to be used by God and put their gifts to use through short-term mission trips. However, I don’t think that in order for local churches to grow and mature spiritually and do what God has called them to do that it is necessary for as many people as possible to make trips overseas. I don’t think either long-term missionaries, short-term missionaries, or long-distance support of national workers, are sacrosanct in and of themselves. They are all means to an end. The end is the fulfillment of the Great Commission. We must continue to ask ourselves, as history marches on, and new situations arise, what is the best stewardship today for us as individual believers and local churches toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission. And, while I agree we must not accept the “jaded” and “know-it-all” attitudes of some long-termers, I do believe it is important to take into account the wisdom of years of cross-cultural experience.