Tena tātou katoa e te iwi mīhana… (Greetings to all the people in mission)

This month’s whakataukī (proverb) is: “Aroha mai, aroha atu.” (loving kindness received, loving kindness extended to others).

Aroha is a foundational value for Māori. It is often translated as love but that is a rather superficial interpretation. Aroha encompasses ideas of inclusivity, selflessness, compassion (meeting people in their pain) and mercy (supplying felt needs). The Māori Bible translates the English word “grace” as aroha. Hawaiians great each other with “Aloha!”, a variant of aroha. This aroha proverb speaks of reciprocity, interdependence and mutuality.

The point here is that it signifies the core of healthy relationships—a two way sharing of commitment to one another. Within this proverb is the idea of receiving and giving (or sending). The order is significant for Māori, but I think it should be flipped for those of us who follow Christ. The golden rule (do unto others…) suggests as much. Regardless, if mutuality exists, where it began becomes a moot point.

I have noted various points of tension in missions groups.

At Laidlaw College’s Graduation on April 28, I was privileged to receive my Fuller Seminary Doctorate of Intercultural Studies diploma. Two days prior I was in Kuala Lumpur consulting with an international mission agency’s governing body. During my 25-years’ involvement with missions I have served with two international missions and simultaneously spent a decade (so far) as an Associate of the World Evangelical Alliance Mission Commission (WEA MC). I have a particular interest in international missions structures and strategies and in these contexts I have noted various points of tension in missions groups.

In KL I was reminded of one major point of tension in particular—the tension between sending and receiving. A core tenet of mission theology is that we are sent into the world as the Father sent the Son (John 20:21). Even then, Jesus was not received well (John 1:11). I see three potential points of reception for every missionary that is sent cross-culturally: 1) the receiving Church, 2) the receiving team, 3) the receiving hosts who do not know Christ.

Tension is understandable if the receiving host culture is dominated by a religion other than one centred on Christ. Christ can be seen as a threat and the powerful within those cultures can have much to lose. Sensitivity is required when building relationships of trust so that one can share one’s faith in a contextually appropriate manner.

I was discussing with David Ruiz, the current Executive Director of the WEA MC, a recent World Council of Churches conference held in Tanzania. David recalled the pain expressed by leaders of established churches in nations where missionaries come to work without first seeking permission, and ‘steal’ their congregants away into new forms of church. Where attempts are made to work with existing local churches, missionaries report difficulties in encouraging established churches to adopt new ways of reaching out or revitalising their congregations. In these scenarios it is too easy for missionaries to see their ways as better and the host nation as in need, and not appreciate the contextual factors at play.

A more common receiving tension is where field teams refuse to consider new members. The reasons for refusal can include: they don’t fit the vision of the team, they don’t fit the make-up of the team, they don’t fit the expectations required of team-members (e.g. language, cultural background, education, funding levels, etc.), or the team is currently in crisis and not in a position to take on new members. There are more reasons, but I think it boils down to a felt lack of capacity. Leaders and teams are overwhelmed, so the temptation is to narrow selection to an exclusive few to make life easier on those who are already there.

‘Team’ is a modern-industrial invention applied to missions, not a Biblical principle.

Without diminishing the very real struggles experienced in each of these scenarios, they stem from an inappropriate understanding of the objective of mission. Mission teams can too easily strive to achieve some preconceived productive outcome and have little desire to deal with people who they view as ‘other’. The very concept of ‘team’ actually frames the problem. Teams exist to achieve common goals, usually in competition with others. It is a modern-industrial invention applied to missions, not a Biblical principle.

The Bible speaks of covenantal communities on mission, sending and receiving individuals or groups it may be, but they are part of communities. Like families, covenantal communities don’t pick and choose who they include or relate to. They are called to bear with, mutually support and learn from one another. In our age of mission service applications, screening, testing, training and contingency planning, this is radically counter-intuitive, but it is worth considering as a more Biblical paradigm. After all, it is the essence of the Kingdom of God. If we have one shared outcome for mission, Jesus said it ought to be our common-unity. Only THEN will the world know (John 17:20-23).

So, how then shall we walk forward, ensuring that we #stayonmission?

Ma te Atua e manaaki koutou (may you all experience the very best things from God),

Jay