Ewinwe, I’m sorry you were ever made to feel like a second-class missionary. Around here, we sometimes count lack of seminary as a plus!

You mention that the disciples were not called based on their ability. I agree. But being called as a disciple and being sent by the church as a missionary aren’t the same thing. I agree that calling should be the single most important factor in missionary selection. I also believe that God’s calling is what makes someone qualified for service, regardless of their education, experience, or ability.

For our organization, however, calling is not enough. We simply can’t afford to send everyone who says he is called to the mission field. Essentially, we have more applicants than we do positions for them to fill. We must therefore consider more than just calling.

We also have a global strategy. If someone, called by God, came to us for appointment, but wanted to build a huge, English-speaking church and intall himself as the pastor, we could not hire him because what he wants to do is outside of our strategy. I’d prefer a selection process that was based on calling, as opposed to strategy. The fact that our organization even has a strategy (as opposed to leaving it entirely up to local leadership) is exclusive.

In my next post, I outline some the the ones I think shouldn’t be on the field. I’d be interested to hear what you think.

Or what´s even worse, someone is weird or has trouble fitting into their own culture and we send them to a foreign land. Granted sometimes being weird can be an asset, but if one has trouble relating to their home culture how can we expect them to understand a new culture? I don´t really think we should base someones ability entirely on education (while that can be useful), but probably more on evidence of the fruit of the spirit in their lives. Whatever someone does in their home culture will probably be magnified in a new culture be it strengths or weaknesses. Stepchild, I hear what you are saying and my own experience agree that people sometimes are sent to the field who shouldn´t be. Like Paul we should look for trustworthy, reliable people and like Barnabas we she go the extra mile of grace! A delicate balance I think.

I tend to agree with you. There are a LOT of Ms who should not be on the field. I’m one of them. I have no seminary training, no church-planting experience, and only a few language skills in my host-country language. Send me home!

I’m not sure why I was even appointed a missionary, when I do not feel qualified to do what “real” missionaries do. If given an appropriate opportunity, I could witness to a local in their heart-language, so I guess that is good, but while at MLC I had the distinct impression that I was not ‘qualified’ to serve … because I did not have an MDiv or similar acronym behind my name. Never mind that the job I have is not front line evangelism or church-planting or urban strategy.

For some strange reason, I felt that God called me here, to this region, to do a job I could do from anywhere on the globe.

I’m one of the ones who does not belong, but I slipped through the cracks.

I guess I should take comfort in the calling of the first disciples – Jesus did not say “hey you guys, you’re really good at what you do, so come work for me” he said “come with me (regardless of what you are doing) and I will make you … “

… so I’m working on being made.

Here are some more questions…

Who would determine the criteria for those who should be on the field? BoT? Local national brethren? The Ms themselves? IMB SCs? TLs? SAs? RLs? I remember all the “fun” we used to have when Ms evaluated one another right before furlough–glad those days are past and gone!

Would consideration be given to the different kinds of spiritual ground that differ from region to region? Would it be on the basis of the Annual Statistical Reports turned in every year? Would we be compared to other Ms currently serving in the same region and evaluated by their results as compared to our own? The budget aspects of necessary M support? Number of kids each family has (the more they have the costlier it is to maintain that family overseas), Daily work schedules? Ability at mastering the language? Personal relationship skills? Ability to function well on a team?

I’m not attempting to make a statement of any kind with my questions, but simply am curious on what basis you might perceive this evaluation be carried out?

I know just what you mean about the leadership shuffle (and by leadership, I mean “the guys in charge,” not necessarily “those who effectively cast vision and equip and encourage us toward church planting”). I agree that we should all have the chance to evaluate those in leadership positions. It seems like a lot of our leadership fit squarely into the “shouldn’t be in that position” category. Unfortunately, our organization often treats leadership as a position, not a gifting.

You mention evaluating those you supervise. We all do that with the IMB. One day I would hope that we be given the opportunity to evaluate those who supervise us. In my years in the 10-40 Window, we have had a “revolving door” of Strategy Associates, most of whom have no idea how to supervise. That is not to say that all were “bad.” Far from it…all were men who loved Jesus, but just had no training in supervisory technique. Maybe, some day the IMB will spend money on training supervisors to train and stop sending people to “ropes” courses or to a camp-out in Idaho.

I know it sounds harsh to say that some of our personnel shouldn’t be on the field. All of them are good people; sincere and devoted. But realistically, our organization can only support a limited number of missionaries. Good stewardship requires that our resources be used to send the best we can send and give those people our full support.

Sure we all have a lot to learn. But can we afford to pay for what amounts to long-term training when there are some who are already capable waiting to be sent? Of course it takes time for people to adjust to life on the field. But how much time should they be given before we say “you aren’t getting it”? Fruit only comes in God’s timing, not ours. I’m not talking about measuring our worker’s value by the results they see. I’m talking about people who, though their intentions may be good, simply aren’t good missionaries.

A big part of my role and responsibility with the Board requires that I evaluate the performance of the workers that I supervise. The Board of Trustees has recently shown their concern for the integrity of our missionary force. I disagree with their actions, though, because the problem isn’t theological. Remember in Acts 15, when Barnabas wanted to take John Mark along on the trip, and Paul objected? That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about here.

Another observation is that it takes years to just get one’s feet on the ground overseas. Real ministry and seeing fruit that remains, seems to take place after long months of faithful plodding and service.

As far as “missionaries that shouldn’t be on the field” I have learned it is best to not judge until we have walked a mile in their shoes. As stated above, getting one’s feet on the ground and figuring out exactly what it is we should be doing is a process and varies from family to family. Yes, it is easy to become impatient with those who aren’t doing it the way we think they should. We have to be careful about judging who should be on the field or not based upon our own limited experience and faulty criteria. God seems to work through us all and will use each of us in varying measure.

I’m not super interested in comparing how hard your place of service is compared to mine, but I imagine life in both would have its difficulties. In my next post, I want to talk about how the “dead weight” aren’t the ones that wash out when the going gets tough, anyway.

Thanks again for your comment. Please don’t let my “yeah, but’s” keep you from commenting. I’m really not trying to be disagreeable…