Missions: Mark Woodward, “You Must Kill All Your Darlings”

After Part 11, Mark has a post responding to the opinions of some (myself included) that the traditional “missions committee” model is salvageable. He writes,

William Faulkner said about revision, “In writing, you must kill all your darlings.”   To add to our difficulty in re-thinking is our tendency to make “our darlings” into “our doctrines”   We put the stamp of biblical perfection on our assignment and turn it in!!  And we expect to get excellent marks in recognition of work well done!

That is indeed very well said — both regarding writing and doctrine. It’s hard to give up our creations. In terms of doctrine, it’s especially hard because we fool ourselves into thinking that our doctrines are God’s doctrines and thus unreviewable. A little humility goes a long way both in writing and theology!

Mark suggests that to avoid keeping old habits purely out of inertia and untested presumption, we should ask ourselves some questions. And I think he asks particularly insightful questions, which I’ll undertake to answer regarding my own congregation’s missions program. (I enjoy bragging on our missions team, but there’s a point to this beyond bragging.)

I would suggest a first step in rethinking is to have an outside evaluation—especially at those churches that have our best mission programs.

If I were coming to help your church look at its mission program, here are some of the questions I would want to ask:

1.  Why do you want to be involved at all in foreign missions?

My church feels strongly called to foreign missions. About 12 years ago, we had no foreign mission program to speak of. The membership and leaders together concluded that it was time for that to change. I think it was a major step in the maturation of our congregation. The church felt the urge to get into foreign missions very strongly.

Soon thereafter the decision was made to raise funds by means of a once-a-year contribution, and the first contribution exceeded our expectations. Obviously, the membership was committed to missions! The contributions have been growing steadily ever since.

We soon were the primary support for a missionary to Eastern Europe and began a number of short-term missions. Elders and others traveled to mission points to assist in long-term mission work and to evaluate the work of the missionary there. The congregation worked to be an encouragement and strength for the missionaries we supported.

Why did this happen? The best I can tell, because the Holy Spirit compelled us. And because of love for the lost. But that love comes from the Spirit.

2.  Where do foreign missions rank in your congregational priorities?’

I’m not quite sure how to rank one mission as against another. It’s like asking which of my children I love the most. They’re all no. 1!

From a financial standpoint, the only line item with more funding than missions is the building payment.

3.  Do you care more about whom you send or where you send them?

I take Mark to be asking whether we pick the person or the field first. The missions team picks the person. They’ve had missionaries approach them about fields they found very exciting, and yet they’ve turned down the work because the missionary didn’t seem a good fit for the work.

4.  What is “non-negotiable” or “untouchable” in your mission program?

There are no sacred cows. We’ve recently dropped some support for programs that were popular within the church because the ministry was ineffective and the missionaries refused to change methods and approaches that had already proved unworkable. The missions team was extremely patient with these works and, I believe, kind in not cutting the work off without adequate warning. I think they handled the painful task of pulling support as well as those kinds of things can be done.

(I’m struggling with saying “we” or “the missions team” or “the elders and the missions team.” We work together very closely on some of the decisions. Therefore, “we” means the elders if you disagree. It means the missions team if you agree.)

5.  What is determining the full capacity of your mission efforts? Available workers? Available funds? Available time?

So far, money has run out long before time or workers! But monetary support has been generous, and our team has been good to leverage sources so that their finite funds go as far as possible.

6.  Does your capacity match your goal?  And is there any room for God to expand any of your capacities?

No, we could do much more. The economy is tough, and funds are limited, but so far we’re not close to the limit of what the missions team or congregation would like to do. If our budget were to quadruple, it would take some time to ramp up, but we’d unquestionably ramp up.

7. How do you determine if you are meeting your goals?

Our goal is to support excellent missionaries doing good work while well-supported by our church. (I think the missions team would agree. I’m sure I’ll be told if I messed it up!) We’ve never set goals in terms of numbers of converts or size of congregations planted. Those are, of course, important, but we measure more in terms of whether the missionaries are doing what good missionaries do and whether the church is supporting them the way we believe a good church should. We plant; God gives the increase. Therefore, we measure more on the planting side — which we can control — and not as much on the increase side.

8.  How many people in the congregation are involved in the mission efforts in any way, including intentional prayer, private support, short-term missions to your mission sites? Are you happy with the percentage of involvement?

I don’t know. Almost everybody, I think. The missions team per se is 25 or more people. We’ll have 30 or so teens and college students participate in a missions effort in many years. I don’t know how many give private support, but it’s likely in the hundreds. Ten to 20 adults will travel on missions in a given year. Many more are involved in prayer — but how do you count that? It’s a big deal at my church.

9.  How many are involved in missions outside of the congregation’s program? Are you happy/concerned about this? Is it a reflection on the church’s program in any way?

Many. None. It depends on how you look at it. If a member decides to go to China, he or she will likely ask for and receive funding from the missions team. They find it hard to say “no” to someone willing to go on mission! But if the missionary doesn’t ask for money, and if they let the team know they’re going, they’ll still be encouraged and supported. They’ll be on our prayer lists in our bulletins and announcements. The missions team is not territorial. They look for ways to support those moved by the Spirit to spread the gospel.

I have to express my pleasure at the fact that the missions team does not have a “Not Invented Here” attitude. They realize that it’s God’s mission, not ours. We let God do his thing, and we join whenever we can.

10. Do you ask for honest feedback from those you send, and are you humble enough to receive fair criticism from them without it threatening their support?

I don’t know. Yes. When we send a leader to visit with our missionary in Romania, I don’t know that they specifically bring a survey asking “How are we doing?” with them, but I know the men who go. And they are humble, servant-hearted men. I can’t imagine that the questions don’t go both ways.

11. How long have your current mission strategies/policies been in place?  Do you have a planned periodical review of all policies?

We formalized our policies about a year ago. There were some changes, and some policies were unchanged. We haven’t thought ahead to a planned periodic review, but no one would object to a revision being made if experience shows it needs to happen.

12. If you could wave a magic wand and change one piece of your mission program, what would you change? What keeps you from making this change without a magic wand?

If I had a magic wand, I’d ask for a whole lot more money. But not too fast. It takes time to ramp up. But there are plenty of good people out there in need of support that we can’t handle within our budget.

I’m very pleased with our current crop of missionaries, and have no complaints about their work. I’m delighted with our missions team.

They’re all human, as are their elders, and none of us is perfect. But things are going pretty well. I worry about other things.

Now, I said all that to say this: We have a wonderful, committed, effective missions team. They’re talented. But any church of our size would have similarly talented people. The success of this team does not derive from having rarely gifted people.

No, their excellence is, I believe, theological. Better yet, it’s Spirit-derived. That is, they are people who understand grace. And they have a passion for the lost. Because they understand grace, they feel compelled to treat others with grace. Therefore, they treat the missionaries they support with grace. They are generous with their time and their hearts. But they also have a passion for the lost, which means they are willing to end programs that don’t serve the lost — gently but firmly. They’re willing to try to repair a broken ministry. They’re willing to be patient.

I don’t think great missionary work is about procedures or methods as much as passion for the ministry and the people. It takes good, Godly, Spirit-led people. And a congregation filled with those kinds of people will do good foreign mission work — if they’ll call on a group like Missions Resource Network and be trained. Anyone can be trained. It’s not expensive. It doesn’t take long. But not just anyone can be an encourager and passionate co-worker in the mission field. That takes the Spirit.

Therefore, I don’t think the cure for our woes in the mission field has much to do with the organizational structure. I think it’s all about the people in the church. And until we get our theology right — and allow time for God’s grace and Spirit to transform us — doing missions right is futility. But once you let the Spirit get hold of your people, well, the mission program will take care of itself in every way except developing some expertise through training. While training doesn’t take long or cost much, there is no quick and easy path to the Spirit. That takes time, because it just takes a while for God to turn stone hearts into flesh. But he’ll do it if we’ll let him.

I can’t find the source for this, but a long time ago I read this statement: “You can’t solve a spiritual problem by reorganizing the church.” And I think many of the problems that beset our missions programs are spiritual problems, not organizational problems. The solution, therefore, is spiritual, not organizational. Get the spiritual problem solved, and the rest will work itself out.

One last thought. It’s inevitable that larger churches are going to be more able to do this than smaller churches. A church of 75 can’t sponsor a missionary well, but a church of 75 can help and can do its fair share of support — both financial and emotional. I can envision smaller churches teaming up with larger churches to form a very powerful, effective network that sends missionaries around the globe.

To do that right, not only should smaller churches send monthly checks to the sponsoring congregation, they should find a way to work together in the broader work of support and encouragement, of recruiting missionaries from among themselves, etc.

I don’t envision any sort of authoritative hierarchy, just congregations that love and respect each other enough to work together.

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Church Plants and Foreign Missions, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Missions: Mark Woodward, “You Must Kill All Your Darlings”

  1. ” 4. What is “non-negotiable” or “untouchable” in your mission program?

    There are no sacred cows…”

    Please take care with that answer. A little probing will likely find non-negotiable items.

    10. Do you ask for honest feedback from those you send, and are you humble enough to receive fair criticism from them without it threatening their support?

    “…but I know the men who go. And they are humble, servant-hearted men. I can’t imagine that the questions don’t go both ways.”

    I humbly ask that you stretch your imagination a bit.

Comments are closed.