Still, I understand what you’re getting at. Every once in a while, someone asks me 1) why I signed up with the Board, knowing what it was all about, 2) How long I can, in good conscience, stay under their employ. I am always honest with my supervisors about what I do ()
and don’t do), and I will stick around until either God calls me to something else, or the Board decided that there’s no longer room for me (or someone like me).

In your analogy, it’s not the “product” I’m talking about here, nor the production process, not even the advertising. It’s the capitalism that undergirds the whole business model.

Thanks for your comment.

So now I have a question: using the analogy of a factory, you knew when you signed on with the Board that they were interested in producing Product X (churches). So you applied, they interviewed, and you were accepted. After new employee training, you were sent to a branch office and were told, “We want you to produce as many copies of Product X as possible. We don’t really care how you do it, but be sure they all match our 12-point quality assurance guidelines.”

Maybe you started making Product X and were really good at it. But over the months you began questioning the need for this particular product. Perhaps you envisioned a better way to make Product X, or maybe a better version of Product X. Unfortunately, the bigwigs weren’t interested in your ideas and they sent you back to the branch office to continue producing their product.

What do you do when you lose confidence in Product X? Do you begin to produce your own products but fudge the yearly report to say you’re producing more of Product X than you really are? Do you bend on any of the 12 point quality assurance points to create a product that is more in line with your thinking? Do you boycott the yearly reports and refuse to be part of a graph? Do you quit the company and go with your own ideas? Or do you succumb to the ideas and demands of the bigwigs and do your job without questioning and without comment?

I like the distinction you make between “relationship” and “task” oriented people. I’m just not sure that the task-oriented one should be the only ones who are talking about missiology.

I also find it interesting that you use the term “evangelizing” instead of “reaching.” To me, the word evangelize makes sense on an individual level (much more than “reach”), but things get kind of fuzzy when we start talking about people groups. Maybe that’s why they the IMB has picked our guiding population and percentage numbers randomly…

I agree with you. I only wish we could close the gap between IMB and sending churches that are attempting to impact unevangelized people groups. The IMB is trying to do this through the Strategy Coordinator Church model and other types of partnerships. However, I think more radical steps should be taken to give stateside churches more say about deployment of their missionaries. I am not referring to day-to-day supervision, but speaking of general strategic direction.

This would move us closer to a more biblical model of mission… the church has more ownership of sending out their missionaries and the agency facilitates. For too long we have been sent by the agency, when we should be sent by the church through the agency.

I also think God calls and leads us in our obedience to His will. I think He does this both through our “left brain” and “right brain.”

Biblically, I think there is some basis for strategic prioritization of the “task” He has given us. The following examples come to mind…

1. Paul, in Romans 15.19-20, says: “So from Jerusalem all the way around to Ilyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.”

2. Acts 19.10 tells us, referencing the ministry of Paul in Ephesus, that: “This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.”

3. There is no chapter and verse proof-text for this, but it is apparent that Paul had a strategy of systematically evangelizing all of the major urban centers in the Roman Empire.

4. Jesus said in Luke 4.43: “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.”

5. Paul says in 1 Cor. 9.19: “I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.”

6. According to the parable of the talents, we will one day be called to account regarding the stewardship we exercise over the resources with which God entrusts us.

I see nothing wrong with godly men and women (IMB administration) who have been appointed by a group of churches (the SBC) making decisions (hopefully based on the leadership, both “left-brain” and “right-brain” of the Holy Spirit) on wise allocation and good stewardship of the resources God has entrusted us with. Are they infallible? No. Do I always agree with the decisions they make. No. But that doesn’t mean I disagree with the basic principle that I, as a missionary sent out by the SBC should in some way be accountable to the strategic supervision of a group of people like them in regards to decisions over how I do the ministry God has called me to do, and what resources should be allocated to me in my efforts to carry this out.

I think our problem lies with the SBC system for missions sending (not funding – that part is great). Our churches are forced to do their own thing, send their own missionaries, without IMB’s help when there is disagreement about where the Holy Spirit is calling someone. The decision has been taken from the local church and is made by an institution. Don’t misunderstand, the IMB is a great institution. But it should not have all of the say. Maybe part, but not all. So, we have this predicament… The Holy Spirit is calling me for a specific work in a certain place among a certain people… my church or network of churches is in agreement after much prayer and examination… but my denominational agency that we support to facilitate this very purpose says, no, sorry, the Holy Spirit would not send you there… but if you still sense God’s leading there, please go with another agency, someone else can facilitate that call, but we can’t. Nevermind that your church has sacrificed a lot of resources to support our agency so that we could facilitate this calling someday.

I guess what this ramble is trying to say… we have a systemic problem with sending missionaries. It will not go away until we make a major adjustment and give more say to sending churches.

I’m not sure about your situation, but I’ve seen missionaries that were made to move for the sake of this sort of strategy. As an organization, we have put “reaching” certain people above the individual leading of the Holy Spirit.

The Board doesn’t support work in areas that are considered to be “reached” as much as work among “unreached.” If 200 missionary units felt called to Western Europe, the Board (under its current strategy) would not send them all.

I’m not being critical of the Board’s actions here, I’m challenging our missiology. My concern is not so much what we do, but how and why.

I daresay most sb m’s are in the field because they felt called, not because they figured it was the best way to allocate the resource of their lives to complete some corporate action item.

When we move from “making disciples” and “proclaiming the good news” (Biblical terms), to presuming to know God’s plan (reaching unreached people groups), we get ahead of the Holy Spirit.

The extra-biblical term, “reaching people” is utterly useless for us, as it remains so poorly defined.

I see a fundamental difference between going where God leads (where we see Him working) and assuming that we need to diversify our efforts among all the people groups with populations greater than some ambiguous number set by a behind-the-scenes strategist(s).

Whether we “multiply our efforts” by “discipling disciplers” or teach by sharing life with the people around us, our task should be to obediently go where He leads, even if it means going to harvest areas or working among people who are statistically “reached.”