thailand, family, God

DAVE GIBBONS is visiting bangkok this week, and with a group of newsong bangkok leaders yesterday, shared a little bit of what he thought about magravan’s homogeneous unit principle. Citing the Good Samaritan parable, Jesus’ answer to the religious leader’s question, “who is my neighbor,” gibbons asked us to consider how the HUP squares with the command to love our neighbor; i mean, if a samaritan’s loving of the wounded jew exemplified this commandment, how does our modern church growth movement square with it? i’ll leave it for you to answer yourselves.

You can read what seems to be a pretty balanced discussion of it here , and a short critique here. some background in my previous posts below.

Just watched Mulan with my kids. can’t seem get this chill off my spine when i see these popular children’s movies; in the case of mulan, “duty to my heart” is more important than all other duties; the impression i get from mulan is that the values of the chinese (eastern) culture are ridiculous, while our western values are “true” or “real”. i’m afraid my kids will grow up with these assumptions, and develop their theologies around them; of course, i’m not sure exactly how culture and theology should relate to each other.

after a little over a year in the mission field, i realize that i have a lot more freedom than i did back in the local church; moreover, my financial supporters are thousands of miles away, pretty much clueless except for my newsletters; the thing that bothers me is whether or not there is a difference between the “effective missionary” and the “effective reporting missionary”.

basically, when it comes to compensating someone, we try to measure one’s performance. eg, a congregation might measure its pastor’s performance by increasing or decreasing attendance; missionaries have a very wide range of ministries, including almost everything one can think of in a mission field. so, how can supporters measure our performance?

it seems to me, at least reflecting on when i was an em pastor back home, the primary way of getting a feel for a missionary’s performance was by the newsletters or the personal presentation (w/ power point, of course) during a visit. combined with a time of earnest corporate prayer and a good praise music soundtrack, people are usually moved to think highly of the missionary. but, having crossed over to the side of the “mission field” i see a big gap between the “effective missionary” and the “effective reporting missionary”. i don’t know how we can get around this issue of appearance and actuality.

i think my missionary friend milo cho said it best last nite after an important missionary ceremony, “we know the difference between what we think is best for the mission field and what would make our supporters feel like we’re doing a great job. but we must stay true to our calling and seek only to please God. those who do not support us can drop us, but God will give us everything we need for His work” (paraphrase).

he’s right; there is a temptation or a business instinct for the field people to put on a show for the supporters back home, even if it means something less than what is best for the church in the mission field. but i must be aware of this issue, and be intentional about maintaining a focus on the gospel work that i must do here; the remaining issue, then, is communicating what i am thinking to my supporters; but it’s kinda overwhelming to try to communicate this cross-cultural ministry context to people who are still in usa. yes, i know, that’s no excuse in compromising my work, that is, in sacrificing the thai church to please my supporters; it would be better to quit than to put the cart before the horse.