Mythbuster #3: The Myth of the Ugly Missionary

February 20, 2009 – 5:16 pm

BUSTED - The Myth of the Ugly Missionary

The term missionary was once a cherished word. Today it has lost its glamor. Indeed, there are those who suggest that the term should be dropped. It smacks too much, they say, of colonialism. Strange as it may seem, the friends at home are the only ones that have this hang-up. Apparently the term is not a dirty word in the Third World. The church leaders there certainly have no objection to it.

Daniel T. Niles, outstanding leader of the Younger Churches of Asia, made a strong plea for “old-time missionaries” not only to remain in Asia but to take the initiative in church affairs. He said:

We are not looking for fraternal helpers. We want missionaries. We know that you cannot find too many of them, but at least send us some. I am not against fraternal helpers. I am only protesting that they are not missionaries. They are helpers. We need any amount of help; but it is a missionary that is wanted, and wanted badly.¹

The same is true of the political leaders. When the African colonies got their independence in the 1960s leader after leader went on public record thanking the missionaries for their contribution to independence and asking them to remain at their posts to help build the new nation. Of all the expatriates living in the Third World, the missionaries and the Peace Corps are the only ones there to give and not get; and the national leaders know this.

The missionary, though held in high esteem by his friends and converts on the mission field, has never stood very high in the social register in his own hometown. The mental image conjured up by the word missionary was anything but flattering. The usual cartoon depicted him as wearing knee sox, Bermuda shorts, and a beat-up pith helmet. The word missionary needn’t appear; the identity was complete. The missionary wife looked even worse. She was expected to have flat heels, long skirt, white blouse, and a bun at the back of her neck. The children, with their hand-me-downs, scuffed shoes, and “strange” behavior, completed the picture.

Intellectually the picture wasn’t much brighter. Not many missionaries had college degrees. For this reason the critics assumed that they were doomed to mediocrity. Some even went so far as to suggest that they volunteered for overseas service because they couldn’t make the grade at home. Brainy men and pretty women were not supposed to be missionaries!

The fact of the matter is that missionaries are neither dumb nor dowdy. Immediately upon return to the States the entire family in many cases is given a clothing allowance which enables them to get a whole new wardrobe. Today it is virtually impossible to spot a visiting missionary in a Sunday morning service unless he is on the platform. The womenfolk are smartly dressed and compare favorably with their homeside sisters. As for the MKs, their problem is to figure out a way to look as unkempt [sic] as their city cousins!

When it comes to intellectual prowess the missionary is not one whit behind the average American. A missionary without a college degree is a rare person today. Many have two or three degrees. He may not remember whether the New York Mets are in the American League or the National League; but he knows more about geography, history, and world affairs than we do. While away from our affluent society he acquired a geniune appreciation for the simpler, finer things of life. He can converse intelligently on a wide range of subjects and is an expert on his adopted country - its history, people, and culture.

As for MKs, they may be less sophisticated than our youngsters, but they are more mature. They have read more books, visited more places, talked to more people, and made more friends. They are usually bicultural and can speak at least two languages fluently. They are accustomed to world travel, which in itself is an education. They have experienced in real life the exciting and exotic things available to us only on television. The number of MKs who go on to college, and do well when they get there, is considerably higher than for the population as a whole. Most of them go into the professions - law, medicine, politics, the pastorate, and teaching. Not a few return to the field as missionaries. Very few have any desire to go into business simply to make money and live well.²

Like the previous “mythbuster” post, this segment reveals Kane’s dated viewpoint (1978). However, most of the stereotypes that he describes have hardly diminished.  To begin, the term missionary still carries pejorative connotations to many today. On the one hand it seems that there are plenty of contemporary examples of an established national church that has been damaged by the lifestyle or speech of the foreign missionary.³ But the fact that the established national church and the missionary(s) are ministering in the same region may be the real problem, not the fact that missionaries exist.⁴ Issues that arise as the missionary evangelizes and begins the church planting process in an unreached region are often not caused by the “foreignness” of the missionary, but because of the offensive nature of the gospel. These “obstacles to the gospel” emerge in the church planting efforts of nationals as well.

As for Mr. Niles’ excerpt in paragraph two, I would like more context before I make too many critiques. However, if Kane’s statement “to take the initiative in church affairs” means that missionaries are to lead and set precedents and remain in control of national institutions, I adamantly disagree. The failure of missionaries to stir in nationals a sense of ownership and responsibility was one of the greatest ills of the previous generations of missionaries. Thankfully many of the fundamental missionaries that have been sent out in recent years understand the principles of indigenization and how crucial they are to the long-term health of the church plants. But old habits die hard, and it will take time for these missions principles to permeate the philosophy of church leaders and missions agencies.

Whether or not political leaders accept the legitimacy of the missionary is, in many ways, a moot point. The fact that African leaders lauded the work of the missionary does not validate his ministry. I understand Kane’s point in trying to present a case for the attractiveness of the missionary in the country where he ministers. But we’ve swung too far today. Yes, missionaries ought to respect public authorities and “render to Caesar the things that are Caesars” (Mark 12:17). It seems that the contemporary evangelical church understands that half of the paradigm. The “and to God the things that are God’s” side is lacking, however. The tension between these two commands is definitely felt in many cross-cultural contexts, but the reality of the tension ought not deter us from sending missionaries. Rather it ought to compel us to bend the knee more often and earnestly, asking our Father to give them wisdom as they attempt to navigate between the two extremes.

The stereotypes that Kane lists regarding the missionary’s dress, intelligence, and children might be dated, but it touches on a contemporary reality. The appearance of missionary families will vary, just like the families that comprise the membership of local churches. I would hope that churches today implement such care for our missionaries as illustrated with the clothing allowance. The educational training of our missionaries is encouraging. Many personal friends of mine that are involved in or preparing for cross-cultural church planting ministry have seminary degrees (M Div or Th M level, with a few at the doctorate level) in biblical studies. This is how it ought to be. We ought to be sending out the “creme de la creme” from our churches to engage in missionary work. Proper adjustment and adaptation for MKs when they arrive back into their “native land” ought to be a high priority for missionary parents. Supporting churches ought to be sensitive to the complexities of MK life and minister to these children in appropriate ways.⁵

Kane adequately shatters this myth, calling churches to assess the “ugliness” of the missionary with a realistic standard. If a church member finds “ugly spots” in their missionaries, he ought to take inventory of his own life, as he might be the cause of these spots, not the cure.

---

¹Dougles Webster, Yes to Mission (New York: Seabury Press, 1966), p. 31.

²Kane, Understanding Christian Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), pp. 18-20.

³I use term “foreign missionary” to clarify that he is not a citizen of the country where he is ministering. I do not believe that the term “national missionary” is valid. (See the bottom of Mythbusters #2 for reasons why it is not a valid term.) Further usage of the term “missionary” in this post refer to a foreigner ministering cross-culturally to establish and aid church planting.

⁴Obviously there are exceptions to this general principle. For example, teaching at a seminary or Bible college would be a valid form of ministry for the missionary in the same region as an established national work. My point is to highlight the danger of ministering alongside nationals without letting them “stretch their wings” and take responsibility for evangelizing a region through church planting. For further insight into this issue of indigenous church planting, you can view a post by David Doran on the subject.

⁵For more on being and raising MKs, see our video series “Kenya, MKs, & Church Planting,” by Joel Weaver, an MK and church planter in Kenya, East Africa.

J. Herbert Kane in his missions classic Understanding Christian Missions, attempts to debunk 9 popular missions myths. We will post each of these “mythbusters” in a series entitled “Missions ‘Mythbusters’” and offer critique of and elaboration upon the issues that Kane surfaces.

Key: Busted = a claim proven to be false; Plausible = a claim that possesses some validity, but is not entirely true; Confirmed = a claim proven to be valid.

Comment on this post.