'The Difference between Evangelism and Mission' by Paul Adams

[Bryan Thompson]

Witnesses or Missionaries
This article has some good thoughts in it, and it was a good read. 
One thing troubles me. Quite a bit! Since getting back to the UK I'm hearing this all over the place ... that we're ALL missionaries. 
I suppose in the strictest sense we are "sent ones". That is true. But, I think the current trend to dub everyone a "missionary" (whether in an office job in Tooting or in some church planting setting in Timbuktu) is REALLY unhelpful.
Firstly, it lumps together everything done in the Name of the Lord as missions. What's wrong with that? Well someone who does a 9 to 5 office job on his/her own (or even with others) where a message is hardly proclaimed ("the Gospel", as Paul Adams ably defined it in this article) can hardly be put on the same sort of ministry level as one who spends every day cross-culturally PROCLAIMing the message. 
I feel what is being communicated is that we are all WITNESSES (the way we used to describe the believer ministering ''at home" when I lived in the UK last!).  
Calling someone a witness at work is absolutely fine, especially when that witness hardly gets the opportunity to, or cannot, open his mouth to speak of the Gospel. I recognise this can also be the case in the foreign field in certain restricted nations, but there is the cross-cultural dimension of the 'sent one' that one would need to also take into consideration in this situation. 
I am confused as to why we need to call everyone missionaries when the word witness more than adequately covers? From the root word of martyr we die to self by witnessing in our job (under threat of being fired or just being misunderstood) as we can die overseas by bearing the Gospel in the face of much opposition. That word covers both but I suggest 'missionary' does not. 
Two of the things that occur when we call everyone a missionary is 1) we confuse the overseas call and 2) we demean what the overseas missionary does. 
Taking the second reason first, and as the area that upsets me most in this ... Would you call me a carpenter if I buy and can assemble Ikea furniture?!? Would you call me a plumber if I manage to unplug the shower drain? No. No one in their right mind would. So why do we call someone who is neither trained nor prepared for missionary work (traditional use of the word) a missionary when they bear witness (albeit faithfully) year after year in their job? What does that say to the person who has given up so much, taken years of missionary training and preparation, and has sacrificial experience invested for decades on the foreign field? I'm sorry but I find that as offensive as saying to a Second World War decorated veteran in this nation's armed forces that we all 'do our bit' in defending the country from terrorists! It's true, but it's also not true, and no way are the two callings the same!
And for the other point ... I find it challenging enough trying to describe what I do in this current PC post-modern world than to now face unnecessary and inaccurate descriptions of the missionary role! And how am I supposed to be a voice for the unengaged, unreached peoples (UUPGs) of this world - the remaining task - if the rest of the Body now takes the vocabulary away to describe something that is not traditionally missionary as missionary?  It is hard enough getting people to obey a calling to missions (overseas) without the very term itself also being torpedoed! 
In this day and age I feel we need to accelerate finishing the task of Jesus by keeping clear definitions of callings and the description of those who GO to the UUPGs as distinct from those who witness in their own land, language and culture - even if that person is in their job sitting beside someone from another culture, or neighbour to one. And yes, someone who happens to sit beside a person from a UUPG in an office, or work beside them on the factory floor, IS different from a person who is CALLED and CHOOSES to go live among a UUPG, learn their language and culture and proclaim Jesus. One just happens to be beside someone from a foreign land; the other chooses to go. Witnesses both, but only one the missionary. 
Semantics? Maybe.  And yes I recognise the word is not a Bible word! But if we take a clear descriptive word away that has the traditional importance of 'missionary' and have no other widely accepted word to replace it with then those of us actively involved in reaching the world's remaining unreached have to use lengthy descriptions to define the Church's main task on earth or we are muted and hamstrung in our mobilisation efforts or with definitions needed for describing the task accurately. And ... we have regular (unnecessary) lessons of patience in tolerating those who ignorantly will come to misuse the word 'missionary'!  

[Randolph A. van der Boor]

As a missionary I must agree with Bryan. Getting support for missionary work "overseas", is getting harder and harder. Widening the scope of the definition "missionary" does not help.
As a comparison: here in Brazil some large churches started calling almost all leaders (house groups/cells/circles, etc.) "pastors"; technically speaking you can do this maybe as they are taking spiritual care of a small group of “disciples”; but it made it hard to differentiate them from the pastors that have trained for years in a seminary and have dedicated their lives 100% to serving the church as a leader. So they ended up calling the “real” pastors “bishops”, to indicate the difference.
We can of course start calling missionaries “apostles”, which actually is a Biblical word and apparently not only used for the 12 + Paul. Problems would then occur, as most missionaries actually are not effective church-planters, but actually serve in a variety of ways, not necessarily even “Evangelistic” in nature.
E.g. I am a missionary, not a real church planter, nor an evangelist, as I mainly work in trying to revive lukewarm churches and giving them a new focus on mission and trying to get them involved. Of course I witness to the people around me; of course I preach the Gospel as part of my sermons and conversations; sometimes somebody may accept the Lord afterwards; but it is not my gift or specific calling. Yet I am a missionary.
So if we want to motivate people to actually start witnessing as a life-style, calling, and command of the Lord Jesus, calling everyone “missionaries” is not the way to go.

[Tim Herbert]

Paul's right in that saying we're all missionaries devalues the currency. I remember a friend of mine remarking that it was unfair that the church prayed publicly for him when he went out to work in a refugee camp in Thailand, but not when he subsequently got a job in Halfords. He believed we're all missionaries.

It's a spectrum. At one end are those of us who have regular jobs, regular families (whatever that is these days), regular church. At the other end are people operating full time by choice in an alien culture for the sake of the gospel. In between are people who choose to work/live/church somewhere that's not quite home in order to be a witness.

The more people move towards the missionary end of the spectrum, the more they need prayer, support and encouragement. It's good to pray for people who just happen to have a job in Halfords*, but vital to pray for those who are living in a strange country, far from friends and family, doing church in a language they don't (yet) understand, guests in an foreign culture trying to engage people with the gospel.

*not consciously picking on Halfords - I spend a lot of money there!

[OSCAR]

Reply from Paul Adams, the author of the original article (sent by email):

This correspondence is interesting, although it did not centre on the thrust of the article which was ‘The difference between evangelism and mission”. Instead, it seems to have pivoted on the need to protect the word “missionary” as a specific job title or professional identity.

I sympathise with the respondents, agreeing that it is increasingly difficult to find the necessary support (prayer, emotional, spiritual, financial) to undertake cross-cultural mission away from the UK. But that is also true about any gospel mission enterprise within the UK (and much of that is functionally cross-cultural), as it is for those who see their daily workplace as their mission field. In the past, the label ‘missionary’ dignified individuals with status, respect and celebrity with the implicit assumption that support should be given. But less so now: globalisation and recession are rapidly eroding many of those former distinctives.

Also, it is increasingly difficult to justify the traditional professionalisation of ministry, either as a clergy-class in the church or a missionary-class on the field: ideas which finds less support in the New Testament than many imagine. Of course, those who are unable to support themselves because of the full-time nature of their ministry will need to receive assistance from others: but even the Apostle Paul chose tent-making in preference. With reducing numbers of ‘clergy’ and ‘missionaries’ (along with a decline in financial giving), some feel the need to protect the roles of the spiritual ‘professionals’. It may also be similar to secular trades and professions struggling to re-establish exclusive job distinctives. Paradoxically, attempts to retain the unique identity of “missionary” as being a fully supported, celebrated, western, expatriate worker in a foreign cross-cultural ministry risk further marginalizing them in the eyes of the global church - as a plurality of mission models ‘from anywhere to anywhere’ (and many without traditional western-style financial support) become the norm.

Commenting to an Army General that it must be difficult to be a Christian in the Armed Forces, he replied, “It’s difficult to be a real Christian anywhere, if you do it properly!” The urgent need remains for every believer to be convinced that the Lord has sent them with the gospel wherever they live and work (and the current financial recession should remind every believer to depend on the Lord for their personal needs, and be generous givers at the same time). The work of traditional missionaries, their agencies and field centres continues to be vital; as is the need for more people to give their lives to serve in a particular corner of the world: but that cannot be exclusive. All of us engaged in global mission need to find contemporary ways to release the treasure of the gospel, while remembering that all of us are unremarkable jars of clay. Far from devaluing the currency of mission, when mission is an integral part of normal Christian life, the work of God’s Kingdom is greatly multiplied.

Kind regards

Paul

[Bryan Thompson]

Thanks Paul. I do appreciate that this was not the main subject of your article, but I do feel that this misconception needs to be addressed, and I would like to see the British Church (where I hear it most) leave this term behind. Hence my bringing it up here.

I also agree it is not a NT word, but I am not trying to find it in the Bible. Traditionally it is a definition of a person with a task that the Church has understood and must not be used elsewhere unless an understood substitute can be found. Again, I believe you're talking about a 'witness'. Simple, sweet, accurate to what you're outlining in your article. But not a missionary.

Just a couple of points here that might not have been clear:

You said:
"I sympathise with the respondents, agreeing that it is increasingly difficult to find the necessary support (prayer, emotional, spiritual, financial) to undertake cross-cultural mission away from the UK."

My main point was NOT that it is difficult to find the funds (although it is!) for the remaining task of the Church, but that it is difficult to define the task and mobilise LABOURERS if we change a traditional definition of the word 'missionary'. Yes, I feel 'church planter' is becoming an in-house word in the missions community, but the Body at large does not know that and not every missionary is a church planter.

My reference to funding was to show how the Church - even with all the important calls we've had worldwide to focus on completing the task these past couple of decades in particular - still has made practically no change in the direction of funding, or, better put and more to the point, NO increase of funding for the unengaged, unreached peoples of the world. Those of us involved in that field are still dealing with immense shortages and living on dog ends compared to other ministries in the Body of Christ. Just like in 1986, today less than 0.5% of the entire Church's worldwide giving goes to the remaining task of reaching unreached peoples. That is shameful. And sinful. (By the way, 4.5% goes to foreign missions where the Gospel is established, or already has a foothold, and a whopping 95% goes on domestic use!)

I heartily agree that there are financial issues in our current recession climate, but, I am sorry, I still feel this economy thing is an excuse. God's economy rises above the world economy, and teachers in the Church need to be showing people how we can give when 'we have nothing' - non-Western poor nations have been doing it for ages!! I agree with you when you say "the current financial recession should remind every believer to depend on the Lord for their personal needs, and be generous givers at the same time". I'm amazed still how people here find that they can eat out regularly, go to the cinema, theatre, concerts, spend money on unnecessary new clothing, buy the latest gadgets, etc., etc., when so many appear to be losing jobs!! When I was growing up we ate out ONCE a year as a family (normally on a birthday of one of the family members)! I don't see MOST people here obviously tightening their belt that much. I DO see churches cutting missionaries' budgets and missions' spending. I have friends no longer on the field - many leaving vital tasks that took years to build up - whose churches said they 'were unable' to support them any longer. This is exemplary of many who do not hold the Great Commission as the main focus of why we're here on earth: bringing the story and worship of Jesus to the nations and places where it isn't. This again is sinful. We can buy a new car, a model a few pegs further up than we need (in this current recession), but we do have to dock missions spending?!? We are at war, and need to have wartime lifestyles to fund, send and pray for the completion of the task.

I am convinced that the average church member (in the many churches I visit) knows less about the remaining task than a decade ago. And now we want to further confuse the Church by changing the traditionally understood vocabulary, with NO substitutes?!?

You said:
"In the past, the label ‘missionary’ dignified individuals with status, respect and celebrity with the implicit assumption that support should be given. But less so now: globalisation and recession are rapidly eroding many of those former distinctives."

I think that is a very grand way to look at the missionary 'label'. And no, I also do not agree that globalisation changes the distinction. While we still have restricted access nations (or, creative access nations) with huge bodies of people who have never heard of the Name of Jesus (unless someone GOES to them cross-culturally, or they will NEVER hear) globalisation changes nothing in that regard. There are still 2 billion who haven't heard and therefore we still need missionaries to go to them.

Anyway, this thinking is the very thing I am getting at above - where the task becomes cloudy to the Church, because we don't have it defined properly, and the vision for the lost is not proclaimed to the Body in general.

In 5 years back here in the UK, I have yet not heard ONE call to the missionary task in a local church service. 35 years ago, when I last lived here, it was happening monthly in most places I visited. The more we avoid mobilising the Church to go (and just talk about the local field) the more the unreached will wait to hear, and those of us who do go will continue to hear "Why has it taken you so long to come and tell us this Good News?"

You said:
"Paradoxically, attempts to retain the unique identity of “missionary” as being a fully supported, celebrated, western, expatriate worker in a foreign cross-cultural ministry risk further marginalizing them in the eyes of the global church - as a plurality of mission models ‘from anywhere to anywhere’ (and many without traditional western-style financial support) become the norm."

I never said the word missionary was this definition of 'fully supported ... western worker, etc.' This misconception is another pointer about how the confusion is setting in about missions and the current missionary need! And no, we cannot fund locals to do the job where there are few to no locals who know Jesus!!! And no, most expats from unreached peoples who are reached here do NOT go back to their lands and reach others. Many fall away under pressure from peers and family and because they have no local body with which to draw strength and grow.

Re the 'fully supported' I have NEVER been fully supported in 30 plus years of missions work. I have also met VERY few in my life who were! My first 10 years in missions I had ZERO expected income (visible means of support). My family has virtually always seen the majority of our 'support' come in from unexpected sources EACH month.

Also, by the way, most missionaries are actually NON-Western now! This is where I see no colour nor ethnicity in that word missionary. I rejoice in the Koreans taking on the globe. The Brazilians and other Latins going to restricted places where white Westerners stick out, and doing a job 'under the radar' that is phenomenal. I am stirred by the Chinese church vision to take the Gospel 'back to Jerusalem'. No the missionary task is still very much needed even though Westerners are increasingly outnumbered. As the Great Commission is still not complete, we still need Westerners to go just as much as we need non-Westerners to go (and come here!). This is where I agree with your comment on 'from anywhere to anywhere'. That's actually been the way it's supposed to be - since the beginning (when Jesus gave us the command!).

However, again, my question remains unanswered ... why is the word "witness" not good enough (without us muddying the picture and vision of the Church militant here on earth) through insisting we (wrongly) use the word missionary to describe all forms of evangelism?!?

And 'witness' IS a New Testament word!! ;-)

[Nigel Spencer]

I agree. I find this commonly-held attitude expressed by Paul both unhelpful and rather discouraging. Bravo, Bryan.

[Neal Pirolo]

On this side of the "Creek", I try to communicate the difference this way:
The LIFE of the Church is WORSHIP;
The GROWTH of the Church is NURTURE;
The MISSION (Singular) of the Church is OUTREACH.
The parameters of that outreach is expressed in Jesus' words: "Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Uttermost Parts."
Jerusalem: Everywhere the members of a local fellowship go: Neighborhood, work, marketplace, recreation;
Judea: Linking arms with other churches or ministries for a regional outreach;
Samaria: To the "unloveables" of the world—different for different people, but possibly prison, mentally or physically challenged, AIDS, old folks like me!;
Uttermost Parts: Here is where we can avoid the confusion of words by using the term CROSS-CULTURAL OUTREACH MINISTRY to describe the old term, missions (plural). C-COM, or missionS, is where one takes deliberate steps to bridge the cultural distinctives to present the Gospel in a culturally-relevant manner, whether in ones own community (God has brought the internationals of the world to the doorstep of every church.) or to the "uttermost parts."

[Randolph A. van der Boor]

It seems to me that C-COM (Cross-Cultural Outreach Ministry) to ‘internationals’ who live on our ‘doorstep’ (but often concentrated in certain parts of the city a few miles away from where ‘nationals’ live), actually would fit much better in the ‘Samaria’ part. The Samaritans were ‘internationals’, that lived on the Israelites' doorsteps (a few miles away), who tried to adapt to Isrealite culture/religion, but in reality remained very different and never really understood the God of Israel until the message of the Gospel reached them.

To reach out to these people, we do not have to move home; our families don’t have to adapt to another culture, school, environment, etc.; we don’t have to leave friends and family behind, nor even change our job and give up our financial (worldly) security. We just have to reach out cross-culturally. (I don’t deny that this may still involve many challenges, sacrifices, learning processes, etc.; as no doubt it was a challenge to the Israelites to reach out to the Samaritans.) But we don’t have to become ‘Missionaries’ to reach out to them.

 

Whereas “Uttermost Parts” describes Cross-Cultural MissionS (C-CMs) that require us to leave our home land, with all its consequences and sacrifices.

 

In my opinion, the word ‘Missionary’ remains linked to ‘MissionS’ and ‘C-COM’ therefore should not replace the word ‘MissionS’ (or C-CMs), as it actually accurately describes another part of the Mission given to us by our Lord.

[Bryan Thompson]

Another great piece on this subject - even if a little dated - is this by Gordon Olson:
Isn't Every Christian A Missionary?

[Chris Maynard]

This is a very useful discussion for me. I have been challenged to address the "anywhere to anywhere" proposition, which I would like to do at some stage. The saying seems helpful to break the old "west to the rest" idea, but it does not seem to put anything very wise, energising or mobilising in its place. I am interested in "deployment messages" that energise and mobilise wisely.

[John Macrae]

Hi Guys,

 

I have to concur with the broad sentiment that we are not all missionaries. I wonder sometimes if its something to do also with the nature of our society and the drive for everyone to have a title, category and qualification?  Perhaps there is a little insecurity there too?

 

For ourselves (Julie, my wife and I) we were tremendously embarrassed at a church in the USA where the pastor called us missionaries. We take no such title!  I grew up hearing of Livingstone and others on my grandfather's knee.  I could never take such a title.  Neither do we consider having a 'ministry'. Its a bit embarassing there too when people ask that question.  So we've settled on some simple terms. We are a son and a daughter of God. We serve where, when and with whom He calls us and we are comfortable with being "servants at large".