;)
Being American and a Missionary at the Same Time
Posted by David Rogers in Church & Missions
I originally posted the following on Nov. 30, 2006 over at my personal blog, Love Each Stone. At that time, I was still living in Spain, as a missionary of the IMB. I think what I posted then is still relevant today, and re-post it here in hopes that it may generate some good discussion related to missionary strategy, and how we, as believers in the States, can be the best stewards of the resources He commends into our hands toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
___________________________________________
A few days ago, Spanish Minister of Interior, Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, presented a study carried out by sociology professor José Juan Toharia on the attitudes of Muslim immigrants living in Spain. According to Rubalcaba’s evaluation of the study, the “Islamic community in Spain is tolerant, liberal, and westernized. It is well integrated and practices an open form of Islam.” He also pointed out that Muslims in Spain have practically the same attitude as Spaniards in general related to the important issues of our day, and an even higher degree of trust in various institutions in society than other Spaniards.
The one thing that really stands out to me, as an evangelical missionary, and American citizen, living in Spain, is what this study has to say about anti-americanism, both among Muslims and other Spaniards in Spain. When asked “To what degree do each of the following people or institutions seem trustworthy to you?,” the answers of the Muslim immigrants were as follows (on a scale of 1 to 10):
The Spanish King 7.2
Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) 6.8
The Spanish Parliament 6.5
Judges 6.2
The Police 6.2
The United States 2.4
The study also added that the attitude of Muslim immigrants towards the United States is essentially the same as the rest of Spaniards.
Having lived in Spain for the last 16 years, none of this really surprises me. But reading in print the results of this study and the comments of someone of such stature as the Minister of Interior, lead me to make several observations. I believe that as American Christians, trying to impact the world with the Gospel of Jesus, we cannot stick our heads in the sand as if this reality did not exist. Perhaps there are some areas of the world where, as Americans, we still have an open door, relatively speaking, to influence others with our ideas. But, at least in the areas of the world with which I am more familiar, this appears to be less and less the case.
How should we respond to this reality? I would offer several suggestions:
1. If we really take seriously the core value of making disciples among all nations, we cannot afford to put all of our eggs in the basket of our personal witness as American missionaries and American volunteer teams. Even though we, as individuals, do our best to overcome negative stereotypes, there are still significant barriers that our national identity puts in the way of many in regards to their open and objective consideration of the message we hope to proclaim. Because of this, I believe we need to seriously look for more and more ways to support the witness of believers of other backgrounds (both nationals and other foreigners), who do not carry with them so much negative cultural baggage, and content ourselves with having a more behind the scenes testimony and presence.
2. At the same time, we should not shirk our responsibility, as Christ’s disciples, to put the talents with which He has entrusted us to the best use possible towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission. If we are going to support others in their evangelistic efforts, we must first show them how. We must be faithful at setting a good example, in spite of the difficulties involved, as well as develop quality relationships of trust and camaraderie with those who will eventually take the baton from us. We should do this, however, to the best of our ability, in a way that minimizes as much as possible the potential stumbling-block of our national origin.
I am not suggesting being ashamed of who we are, or being unnaturally self-deprecatory. This, at times, requires a delicate balance. What we should not assume, however, is an attitude that communicates that others should pay attention to what we have to say, just because we are Americans. In the past, in some places in the world, we have used our American-ness as a “calling card,” which has met with varying degrees of success. More and more, however, I sense that this approach, at least in the areas of the world with which I am familiar, is likely to fall flat on its face.
In spite of all this, though, around the world, people are still people. Most, in spite of the cultural prejudices they may harbor, still respond positively to sincere friendship and a humble, servant attitude that seeks to love them for who they are. We must give our best effort to do just this, while at the same time avoiding everything that might only serve to confirm their stereotypes of the “ugly American.”
3. Believers and churches in the States should be more aware of the difficult situation in which this reality places the missionaries they send out around the world. Trying to communicate the love of Christ in such a setting can be a serious blow to your sense of self-esteem, if it is not firmly grounded in who you are in Christ alone, and not who you are as an American. Those who support missions back at home should also be aware of how political issues in the States can, at times, make the burden that the missionaries they send out have to bear, even heavier. Without compromising on our God-given responsibility to be salt and light in our society, and maintain a prophetic voice in the face of evil and injustice, we should be sensitive as to how our public image affects not only our witness on the home front, but also, more and more, on the international mission field, as well.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
A Question:
I have been told by people that anti-Americanism is somewhat theoretical in many countries. I talked to a missionary who served in a Muslim country. They hate America, but they actually seem to like Americans individually.
Did you experience much personal animosity, or more political/cultural views?
David,
I just came across this article on CNN this morning. Apparently some Haitans attacked a bus carrying 11 U.S. short-term missionaries who were attempting to escape the country because of the growing violence. In this case, the U.N. Peacekeepers are being blamed for the cholera outbreak, and being foreigners in Haiti, the missionaries were attacked. This is another example of how being an American is not necessarily going to be helpful. A few weeks ago they probably would have been fine.
Another thought that comes to mind is how the early church spread the gospel despite the cultural barriers that existed. Judaism (with which Christianity was associated) was viewed as a “barbarian” culture and religion. Despite this, a Centurion was converted early in the book of Acts and a Proconsul was converted also on the first missionary journey. The book of acts bears witness to the spread and acceptance of the gospel amongst the Gentiles. Still, the earliest treatises against the faith criticized Christianity for its “barbarian” roots.
This is a fairly sobering topic, David. I’ve been hearing low-level comments from missionaries seeking support that the current trend in churches is to support more indigenous mission works than to support American missionaries headed overseas. Have you (or anyone else here) seen this to be a trend in mission support?
Dave,
The answer to your question has several different facets to it:
1. I think everything I say here must be couched in the context of this:
“In spite of all this, though, around the world, people are still people. Most, in spite of the cultural prejudices they may harbor, still respond positively to sincere friendship and a humble, servant attitude that seeks to love them for who they are.”
2. I think a true attitude of anti-Americanism varies a good bit from country to country, and from people group segment to people group segment, within individual countries. For instance, in my recent trips to Latin America—though it is a very subjective thing to try to evaluate—my impression has been that my American-ness has been less of an initial barrier than it was, on many occasions, in Spain.
3. In many situations—perhaps, especially the ones that APPEAR to be more open to Americans as Americans—the underlying motive in the way local people—both believers and non-believers—deal with us as Americans is what they can ultimately get out of us, primarily in terms of finances and material gain. This makes it very tricky to know who is truly your friend, and who is your friend with an underlying motive. Personally, I prefer a context where underlying motives are more out front, and you don’t always have to second-guess other people’s motives. That being said, I think it is crucial, for long-term missionary success, to avoid becoming overly cynical related to all this, and to err more often on the side of vulnerability than that of cynicism.
4. Also, within any society, there will be those who are more friendly to outsiders (including Americans), and those who are more closed. Many times the impressions we, as missionaries, get of a culture, at large, comes from our interaction with that segment of society that happens to be more friendly to outsiders, because they are the ones who most naturally gravitate toward maintaining personal relationships with us.
As I see it, this is not a bad thing in and of itself. We must take our message first to those who are more open and responsive. As I understand it, Paul, for instance, after the Jews, “targetted” the God-fearing Gentiles, because they were more friendly to his cultural background, as well as more open to the gospel message he brought.
What we need to be careful about, though, perhaps, is seeing everything through rose-colored glasses. Objective studies show the degree of anti-Americanism in many contexts is a good bit higher than what we like to think.
5. In Spain, I have sensed that some people (not all) treated me different upon learning I was an American, as opposed to some other nationality. My son says he hung out a lot during his high school years with a Canadian MK friend, and, at times, pretended to be Canadian. He claims the general response was markedly more open as a “Canadian” than as an American. Once again, though, all this is highly subjective, and, almost certainly, varies a good bit from context to context.
6. Also, 2006, the year this study was done, was probably at about the height of anti-American sentiment in Spain, and, likely, many other areas of the world. It would be interesting for me to hear from missionaries who were on the field for a while before 2006, and have been there since, if they have detected any improvement in the general attitude of local people to Americans and/or America.
Andrew,
I just read the article on Haiti. That is truly a sad situation. I also read the comments at the end. I noted a tendency on the part of some to react by saying, for all practical purposes, “The Haitians are all just stupid and ungrateful.” This, in my opinion, is precisely the type of attitude we as Christians must avoid like the plague. We are all, by nature, sinful and corrupt, and, it is only the grace of God that makes it possible for any of us to contribute anything positive in this world. God loved us while we were yet sinners. And, we must love people (such as those in Haiti) even when they appear to be ungrateful for our help. At the same time, we must go with an attitude that doesn’t necessarily expect for the locals to bow down and kiss the ground we walk on. When all is done and told, we serve God first and foremost, and our ultimate recognition must come from Him who sees all, knows all, and understands the inner motives of our heart.
Regarding the early church, and the perspective of 1st-century inhabitants of the Roman Empire as seeing Christianity as a religion with “barbarian” roots, I do think there are some interesting thoughts to take into consideration there. In the long run, this perception on the part of some, did not impede the progress of the gospel. God is sovereign. And, the Holy Spirit is able to penetrate the hardest of hearts.
However, I do think we have warrant to continually ask ourselves, To what degree does the way we are presenting the gospel—whether intentionally or inadvertently—give the impression to the local people that the “religion” we represent is an American religion, joined to American culture and ways of doing things?
Rick,
Yes, indeed, this is a sobering (and also complex) topic. There is definitely a trend on the part of some to support nationals directly.
Personally, I think we must avoid the extremes on both sides of this question. One point of view is that we must never finance national workers because it creates unhealthy dependency, and jealousy among those who receive our help and those who do not. The other extreme is to withdraw all American missionary personnel and just send money.
The balance, as I understand it, is to continue to “Go” in obedience to the Great Commission, but to realize that the Great Commission is given to the Whole Church to take the Whole Gospel to the Whole World. We work as partners with those in other places. Partnership, however, is complex. If we are not careful, we can easily fall into the trap of paternalism, without intending to. There are also those nationals who are just after our dollars, as well.
But, in the long run, I think we have much more to gain from doing our best to work toward successful partnerships than in avoiding them because of the potential pitfalls.
I think the examples Strider shares in his last post of how he and his colleagues have gone about the work in Middle Earth is a great model. His team includes both locals and ex-patriates. He sometimes gives them access to resources they would not otherwise have access to. But, he avoids communicating the idea that it all depends on him, and on funding, and ingenuity, from the West. He is seeking to put the local believers out in front as much as possible, working behind the scenes to mentor them, and do whatever possible to make them more successful at reaching their own people with the gospel and ministering the love of God to them.
Dave,
Could it be with some of the European countries that they see Americans as abandoning Europe for a quest for our own identity in religion that causes the strain or hate? Along with that, would we be considered and viewed as a minority? That could create some prejudice toward Americans, too.
There is a preacher in Pensacola, FL, Peter Ruckman, (not that I follow him one inch) who talked about the prejudice of the white people toward blacks. He said that in the south most whites get along with blacks individually but want nothing to do with them as a group and the north gets along with blacks as a group but want nothing to do with them individually. I did not have an opinion about that at the time but recognize that prejudice does work that way depending on the culture people are exposed to. How Americans are viewed by other countries may depend on many things. I just cannot believe Americans are hated or disliked for one or a few reasons. There has to be many more reasons Americans and their mission work are rejected. I think the only way Americans can be more effective in missions is to win one of the countrymen and disciple them to become the leader. Then we take the back seat position allowing them to be the mouthpiece of the gospel; even if it takes a lifetime to find that one. I am not mission minded and do not pretend to be. I just think I would do it that way if I was a missionary.
Thanks for this good post and the kind words in your last comment. Yes, anti-Americanism is up still. All around the Muslim world people are more favorable to President Obama than they were to President Bush but they still view America as arrogant and out to use the rest of the world for its own benefit. In the Muslim world they are extremely hospitable. Individual M’s will find open doors and set tables but that does not mean that hearts are open to hear from us. Here in my little corner of Middle Earth people were largely unaware that they were supposed to be anti-American 10 years ago but now they know. It is not overt, but it means that everything I say is assumed to have a subversive meaning.
What this means for us is precisely what has been spelled out here already. I must proclaim the Word and it will have effect. But once it does I need to get out of the picture as quickly as possible. I do not attend a national church and have never regularly attended any of the five churches that I have helped to start. This encourages local leadership and local culture. At the end of the day I don’t need credit and I don’t need control. We should all be about announcing the coming of God’s Kingdom and that has never had anything to do with my nationality. Anti-Americanism serves only to remind us of our place in the grand scheme of things. We are not in control and were never meant to be.
Bruce,
As you observe, the reasons behind the attitudes of Europeans toward Americans are many. Trying to isolate any one factor will almost certainly be overly simplistic, and, as a result, inaccurate. Though it is, perhaps, a question of nuance, my impression is that, more than “hated,” Americans, in many cases, are disdained. Also, as Strider observes in his last comment, although they may be hospitable on a surface level, there is a resistance toward being influenced, especially regarding religion. In some cases, Europeans feel culturally superior. The lack of knowledge many Americans display regarding world history, world geography, and international politics, to name a few, serves to enforce this idea in their mind. Believe it or not, there is also a sense, on the part of quite a few, that they are morally superior. It’s just for them, the important moral questions are different than they are for us. For instance, the fact that we still have capital punishment, very little gun control, and are quick to support preemptive war, are seen by many as major moral issues. Whether the view of American conservatives on these issues is right or wrong, it causes Americans as a group to lose moral credibility in the eyes of many Europeans.
There is probably a bit of envy behind the attitudes of many, as well. Everybody loves to hate on #1, even in sports, right? And, when #1 wears the fact they are #1 on their sleeve, and waves it in everybody’s face, it gives all the more motive to hate them.
Though that may make us, as Americans, feel a little better, it still does not solve our problem as missionaries, though. The bottom line is not whether they are justified in their disdain or not, but whether they are able to hear and understand the gospel in a way that makes sense to them.
I am not sure about Ruckman’s theory (though I do agree with you in not following him one inch on other matters). It sounds like a bit of an over-simplification to me, though.
I do think you are right on target, though, with the missionary strategy of seeking to win one indigenous person to Christ and discipling them to be a leader. In order to not put all our eggs in one basket, I would not limit our goal to winning and discipling just one, though.
I am reminded of a quote I think I have mentioned on various occasions on blogs here and there. I was listening to a church planting seminar led by Wolfgang Simsom, German house church guru (for lack of a better short description), for workers in Spain and the Muslim world—with mostly Americans and other Westerners in attendance. One of the Americans asked him, “What is the most strategic thing we as Americans can do to help facilitate a church planting movement in the places in which we work?” Although I don’t sign off on everything Simson teaches, his answer was classic, and, in my opinion, one of the most important concepts in cross-cultural missions today:
“Find an indigenous believer who is on fire for God and pour gasoline on his fire.”
Strider,
Thanks for piping in here. It is interesting to hear your perspective from the field in recent years. What you say rings true.
The issue of Western M’s attending national churches or not is one I have wrestled with a bit. When you explain it from this perspective, it makes more sense to me. I am thinking maybe the particular context plays into this quite a bit. Perhaps, in places where the work is a little more developed (such as Spain), it is not a bad thing for the M’s to attend a national church. For me, it was a sign of solidarity and support for what they were doing. It helped me to gain credibility in the eyes of the national leaders. But, in a context like yours, I can see where the motives you mention may very well be valid.
David: Seriously, Rob Nash of the CBF had a very fascinating sermon at FBC Greenville long or about October 24 on the edges of this topic. I have not found it online but if I do will try to get a link to you.
James Robinson’s refiring of the Religious Roundtable that has been a strong discussion midweek at ethicsdaily.com has lot of implications for what passes for American Christianity in the rest of the world, and the SBC with its links to Robinsons brand of Christianity has a lot of baggage.
More later.
And this may inflect this discussion in interesting ways; obliquely and directly influence the evolution of the converstional topic:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/interfaith-support-doesnt-compromise-your-faith-cms-17042
Stephen,
Actually, I met and prayed together with Rob Nash at the UBLA Leadership Consultation in Costa Rica back in April. Very nice man. I enjoyed meeting him. Please do send the link of the sermon, if you find it. I would be interested in giving it a listen.
Can’t help but wondering if he is related to Brendan Fraser or not, though. Check out the following photos:
http://www.thefellowship.info/About-Us/Who-We-Are/Staff/Leadership-Profiles/Rob-Nash
http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/Comment/article/171172
I was fortunate in that the country I served in was in East Asia and for the most part both the government and the people where I served had a favorable opinion of Americans. This was despite the fact that in the early days they believed all missionaries worked for the CIA and had a gun in their house. In fact there were two things they believed were true of all Americans. We owned a gun and we ate hamburgers 3 meals a day.
It can be a plus to have an American passport at times but the trick is not to demand special privileges because you are an American.
My situation would be more like David Rogers when it comes to attending a national church. I can understand Strider’s position in the circumstances where he lived. In a country where there is a national church and we are free to worship openly with our national believers without putting them in danger, it would often be interrupted as being elitist or arrogant if we did not join them and worship in their churches on a regular basis. I have attended churches I helped start probably a little too long at times but it is hard to separate yourself from friends and those you have been partners with. The key is to make sure they are in charge. One person high up at the IMB told a friend of mine it was not good for missionaries to learn the language too well because they would become too close to the nationals and then not want to move on once they had started a church. I think that is a short sighted view and ignores some other important issues.
“One person high up at the IMB told a friend of mine it was not good for missionaries to learn the language too well because they would become too close to the nationals and then not want to move on once they had started a church.”
Ron,
I have heard stories like this before as well. I guess you have an actual name and source to tie with the story, though. I think this is a very unfortunate view, and hope that this type of thinking is rooted out of IMB leadership to whatever degree it may still be present (hopefully not anymore).
I have a name and source. You would recognize both.