I was inspired to write this article by a recent, largely helpful blogpost by missionaries involved in Bible translation, although my thoughts have been 'cooking' for many years. I should point out that I have been/was a 'missionary' (we'll come back to that word) for something like 17 of 45 years of my life. Subject to what I will say below, it is a description I embrace. And, if you didn't know already, there are countless thousands, if not millions of Christians across the world who right now are giving their all to serve God in challenging settings, proclaiming the Word and helping the needy.
I will get straight to my point. I have a problem with the concept of 'sending' and thus with the term 'missionary'. This may seem bemusing, but if you ask those who have been engaged in 'mission' you will hear countless stories of insensitive people (often including the missionaries themselves) storming into other cultures and settings and imposing their agenda, setting up local branches of their church back home and promoting their pet brands and causes. By contrast there is a species of Christians who have really 'gone native' (I know it sounds awfully colonial, but you know what I mean). They have learnt the language, embraced the culture, loved the people and often, notwithstanding challenges and setbacks, their lives and ministries have seen lasting fruit.
Just this Sunday I was talking to one such man. Humble, generous, kind, outgoing, sensitive, intelligent - the list could go on. I was asking him about his involvement with a college for training pastors. And he shared about how he had taught a module on the history of the African church. He went on to qualify that the course was intended not from the perspective of 'sending' but rather from the perspective of 'receiving'. He told me that many of our 'missionary stories' exist in a different form in those places where they took place. So we need to approach mission not in terms of those sending and sent, but rather in terms of those receiving. This ties in well with a concept taught us by Jonathan Lamb and others in the 1990s when I first travelled to Russia and the Former Soviet Union: namely partnership, i.e. a non-domineering two-way relationship in which we participate in the lives of those we serve (and they participate in ours).
Ask any Russian pastor and they will have stories to tell of well-meaning missionaries from places such as the UK, USA or Germany inadvertently or carelessly acting inappropriately. On several occasions I have met wet-behind-the-ears, ab-initio-language learners who have been 'given' cities and whole areas by their sending missions. I sat through a sermon in which teetotal Baptists were told that being filled with the Spirit was like feeling jovial after a drink. Missionaries from one international mission which should know better 'discovered' an unreached people group, the Gaelic speakers of the Highlands and islands (one of the remaining strongholds of Christianity in the British isles).
So how does that impact on the meaning of missionary? I concede that there will also be sending. Indeed the ultimate Sender is not the support group or the local church, but the Lord himself who breathed the Spirit from the Father on the assembled Apostles (John 20). But I would like to add that a missionary is 'one who is received' (cf. Mark 9:36-37). And mission is not merely about sending and giving, but about exchange. The 'missionary' must overcome the 'benefactor's complex' and engage with those whom he or she serves, embracing them, loving them, considering them as equals and willing to receive from them. We see this clearly in the Apostolic practice: Lydia insisting on hospitality for Paul, Paul speaking to the Philippians of his 'partnership' (from the word koinos, business partner) with them in the gospel, the Gentile Christians supporting their Jewish brethren and many other examples. "At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality." (2 Cor 8:13)
