Comments on: International Mission Brand http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/ Let's give the Commission back to the church. Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:47:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: George http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/comment-page-1/#comment-3052 George Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:15:35 +0000 http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/#comment-3052 AHHH Brands...I work for one of those "mission brands" and I agree with you. We always tend to look at it as all or nothing. Either you are 100% for the big boards or your Chruch sends it's own people or supports those who are not affiliated with a "board". I think there is some great middle ground...but there is always a catch the boards have to let go of their fears/pride of being unknown and stop acting like a company marketing a product. As a Follower working in another country I would love to have a personal, involved relationship with a handful of Churches but that isn't enough for my big bosses. We are constantly pushed in the direction of broad impersonal communication: "write a description of your work with a picture and we will publish it under our name in November of next year", or "we are sending people to make a video about your country take care of them and we will let you know when it is done and we will send it out"...etc etc. If I said that I have 5 churches (which I think would be a lot) that I am involved with deeply, spending time with, constant communication, doing ministry, responsible and accountable to, etc. and because of that I don't have time for any other "promotional stuff" I would be told that I had to do it and it is part of my job. So I know what you are saying, I agree, but maybe your comments should be directed at the administration of the "Brands" and not the worker bees because I am trying my hardest to do exactly what you are saying and it is hard to shake to monkey off my back. Maybe the best "program" these boards could install would be the lack of a program. Hold me accountable fine, no problem but stop forcing me to do things that serve nothing else but promote your product. AHHH Brands…I work for one of those “mission brands” and I agree with you. We always tend to look at it as all or nothing. Either you are 100% for the big boards or your Chruch sends it’s own people or supports those who are not affiliated with a “board”.

I think there is some great middle ground…but there is always a catch the boards have to let go of their fears/pride of being unknown and stop acting like a company marketing a product.

As a Follower working in another country I would love to have a personal, involved relationship with a handful of Churches but that isn’t enough for my big bosses. We are constantly pushed in the direction of broad impersonal communication: “write a description of your work with a picture and we will publish it under our name in November of next year”, or “we are sending people to make a video about your country take care of them and we will let you know when it is done and we will send it out”…etc etc.

If I said that I have 5 churches (which I think would be a lot) that I am involved with deeply, spending time with, constant communication, doing ministry, responsible and accountable to, etc. and because of that I don’t have time for any other “promotional stuff” I would be told that I had to do it and it is part of my job.

So I know what you are saying, I agree, but maybe your comments should be directed at the administration of the “Brands” and not the worker bees because I am trying my hardest to do exactly what you are saying and it is hard to shake to monkey off my back.

Maybe the best “program” these boards could install would be the lack of a program. Hold me accountable fine, no problem but stop forcing me to do things that serve nothing else but promote your product.

]]> By: Alan Cross http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/comment-page-1/#comment-2807 Alan Cross Sat, 28 Feb 2009 06:22:46 +0000 http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/#comment-2807 "Where are the missionary practitioners who will lead the church into a direct, responsible, and missiologically sound participation in missions?" I am pastoring a local church in America, but I take the role that you mentioned here seriously. I think that there are other stateside pastors that are doing the same thing. You and I have talked about this, but I think that local churches can make a direct impact in missions at this point in time. If we don't engage, that is our fault. Hopefully we will. “Where are the missionary practitioners who will lead the church into a direct, responsible, and missiologically sound participation in missions?”

I am pastoring a local church in America, but I take the role that you mentioned here seriously. I think that there are other stateside pastors that are doing the same thing. You and I have talked about this, but I think that local churches can make a direct impact in missions at this point in time. If we don’t engage, that is our fault. Hopefully we will.

]]> By: Grady Bauer http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/comment-page-1/#comment-2796 Grady Bauer Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:20:43 +0000 http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/#comment-2796 Jerranna, I didn't read that the IMB was bad. The question that I saw was that in the US church world you have various "voices". Regardless of the camp....Emerging, tradtional, landmark, missional....their are voices and faces. But why not with missions? The question that I saw is....why are there no voices or faces to modern missions? We can learn much from studying the ministries and philosophies of Warrn, Hybels, and Driscoll. But if we're trying to learn more about missions....today....where do we go to? If you're a young, missional Southern Baptist and you want to know more about missions from your world-view...there aren't options beyond big organizations....that won't even talk with you until you've started a lenghty process of application. Where are the voices and the faces? This is a question I'd like to see answered. Grady Jerranna,
I didn’t read that the IMB was bad. The question that I saw was that in the US church world you have various “voices”. Regardless of the camp….Emerging, tradtional, landmark, missional….their are voices and faces. But why not with missions? The question that I saw is….why are there no voices or faces to modern missions? We can learn much from studying the ministries and philosophies of Warrn, Hybels, and Driscoll. But if we’re trying to learn more about missions….today….where do we go to? If you’re a young, missional Southern Baptist and you want to know more about missions from your world-view…there aren’t options beyond big organizations….that won’t even talk with you until you’ve started a lenghty process of application.

Where are the voices and the faces? This is a question I’d like to see answered.
Grady

]]> By: Jerranna Cannady http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/comment-page-1/#comment-2792 Jerranna Cannady Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:33:06 +0000 http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/#comment-2792 I have to also say that I do not agree with what you said about brands. Okay. let’s talk about brands (and I will get to International Mission Board eventually). I could argue that brands change people’s lives, good or bad, because they are badges of self esteem and what people want to say about themselves. Is this good? heck. I don’t know. But it is what it is. Brands are human nature. Beyond self esteem or self image .. if a brand’s products or services are good they give us a sense of trust, or some daily mental balance in their selection, which ultimately simplifies our lives in small ways to allow us to focus on other things. In a daily life filled with a lot of anxiety I can honestly say that selfishly a trusted brand is a small comfort I relish. Next. We need to remember what you are referring to as “brands” are simply products & services being offered by some organization. In some cases the ‘brand’ is a group of people (who do something). And each of these things have earned some emotional connection, most often trust in expectations, with a user people group. (I will get back to trust in expectations later). And I could also argue several of these products/brands have change our lives .. crest toothpaste introduced teeth brushing into our lives and virtually eliminated tooth decay (enhancing people’s health). Soap brands increased healthy hygiene. Ford provided the opportunity for the everyday person to have an everyday car (their mission statement). Great brands help generations transition and change our lives. is it always for the best? Heck. I doubt it, but what I do know is moving forward is preferable to standing still in life. And if brands help us move forward, be healthier, have better daily lives .. then all the power to them. Okay. back to International Mission Board. Can anyone deny the overall impact the organization has had over time with regard to impact on Lostness? Don’t the majority of churches have some level of expectation and trust in this group of people called International Mission Board? While I hesitate to credit “the brand” for this trust I am at a loss for what else to do. For to do anything else diminishes the collective strength and the integrated consistency of the entire collective of people, past and present, which creates the success. Isn't this "brand" made up of a collective group of leaders, past and present, giving those leaders a common voice? To simply attribute success to one person or a small group of people is to sell short the combined knowledge and expertise and, yes, the people who make it all happen. That is the tricky part when I read about “brand bashing” .. for example, the cases when individual people with similar intents, purposes and aspirations group together and collectively move forward with the desire to benefit others who interact with them – and they continue consistently over generations .. how can you not attribute them as a brand which changed people’s lives? By calling it a ‘Brand’ simply suggests it is bigger than one person (yet dependent upon people). In the end I believe this brand called International Mission Board has earned some trust. And it certainly should have earned some respect for its continuous focus for a greater purpose. In the end I also believe that International Mission Board has bettered “manyone’s” lives. If you don’t believe that then you have ignored and diminished all they have done to this point. I do not believe it is individuals looking to brand themselves as voices for being missional is what is missing. That just creates more "brands". What is needed is the connection between those on the field and the people in the pew. And that is what the IMB can offer. But. This is just one person’s point of view. I have to also say that I do not agree with what you said about brands. Okay. let’s talk about brands (and I will get to International Mission Board eventually). I could argue that brands change people’s lives, good or bad, because they are badges of self esteem and what people want to say about themselves. Is this good? heck. I don’t know. But it is what it is. Brands are human nature. Beyond self esteem or self image .. if a brand’s products or services are good they give us a sense of trust, or some daily mental balance in their selection, which ultimately simplifies our lives in small ways to allow us to focus on other things. In a daily life filled with a lot of anxiety I can honestly say that selfishly a trusted brand is a small comfort I relish.
Next. We need to remember what you are referring to as “brands” are simply products & services being offered by some organization. In some cases the ‘brand’ is a group of people (who do something). And each of these things have earned some emotional connection, most often trust in expectations, with a user people group. (I will get back to trust in expectations later). And I could also argue several of these products/brands have change our lives .. crest toothpaste introduced teeth brushing into our lives and virtually eliminated tooth decay (enhancing people’s health). Soap brands increased healthy hygiene. Ford provided the opportunity for the everyday person to have an everyday car (their mission statement). Great brands help generations transition and change our lives. is it always for the best? Heck. I doubt it, but what I do know is moving forward is preferable to standing still in life. And if brands help us move forward, be healthier, have better daily lives .. then all the power to them.
Okay. back to International Mission Board. Can anyone deny the overall impact the organization has had over time with regard to impact on Lostness? Don’t the majority of churches have some level of expectation and trust in this group of people called International Mission Board? While I hesitate to credit “the brand” for this trust I am at a loss for what else to do. For to do anything else diminishes the collective strength and the integrated consistency of the entire collective of people, past and present, which creates the success. Isn’t this “brand” made up of a collective group of leaders, past and present, giving those leaders a common voice? To simply attribute success to one person or a small group of people is to sell short the combined knowledge and expertise and, yes, the people who make it all happen.
That is the tricky part when I read about “brand bashing” .. for example, the cases when individual people with similar intents, purposes and aspirations group together and collectively move forward with the desire to benefit others who interact with them – and they continue consistently over generations .. how can you not attribute them as a brand which changed people’s lives?
By calling it a ‘Brand’ simply suggests it is bigger than one person (yet dependent upon people).
In the end I believe this brand called International Mission Board has earned some trust. And it certainly should have earned some respect for its continuous focus for a greater purpose. In the end I also believe that International Mission Board has bettered “manyone’s” lives. If you don’t believe that then you have ignored and diminished all they have done to this point.
I do not believe it is individuals looking to brand themselves as voices for being missional is what is missing. That just creates more “brands”. What is needed is the connection between those on the field and the people in the pew. And that is what the IMB can offer. But. This is just one person’s point of view.

]]> By: Grady Bauer http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/comment-page-1/#comment-2775 Grady Bauer Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:04:35 +0000 http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/#comment-2775 Ernest, I think there are a few reasons behind this.... First....security. The majority of us live in places where we have to be secure with our communication. I'm doing my best to attempt to stay public, vocal and connected....but it is difficult. I do Facebook, Twitter, and a few different blogs....with different names of course. Second....our understand of our roles. Most of us allow our organizations to do our communication and networking for us. On a team of over 20 I'm the only one who sends out regular updates, twitters or blogs. Most of us don't see mobilizing or connecting as part of our responsibility. Guys in the states understand the need to relate and network. And it's easier to do. If I could get home more frequently than 3-4 years I could attend alot of conferences and network much better than I can from here. Third....usually becoming a voice removes us from the work. The few that our organization has raised up have usually left the field and end up losing their edge and often their voice. Warren has a strong voice because he is still pastoring...same with Hybels. How many of our people have the freedom to stay on the field and become a voice in the missional conversation? These are just a few thoughts....I think your post is asking some much needed questions. Keep them coming! Ernest,
I think there are a few reasons behind this….
First….security. The majority of us live in places where we have to be secure with our communication. I’m doing my best to attempt to stay public, vocal and connected….but it is difficult. I do Facebook, Twitter, and a few different blogs….with different names of course.

Second….our understand of our roles. Most of us allow our organizations to do our communication and networking for us. On a team of over 20 I’m the only one who sends out regular updates, twitters or blogs. Most of us don’t see mobilizing or connecting as part of our responsibility. Guys in the states understand the need to relate and network. And it’s easier to do. If I could get home more frequently than 3-4 years I could attend alot of conferences and network much better than I can from here.

Third….usually becoming a voice removes us from the work. The few that our organization has raised up have usually left the field and end up losing their edge and often their voice. Warren has a strong voice because he is still pastoring…same with Hybels. How many of our people have the freedom to stay on the field and become a voice in the missional conversation?

These are just a few thoughts….I think your post is asking some much needed questions. Keep them coming!

]]> By: stepchild http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/comment-page-1/#comment-2772 stepchild Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:12:48 +0000 http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/#comment-2772 David, I'm really thankful for the "big names" in missions. So much of what we do on the mission field is informed, directly and indirectly, by their contribution. I guess I'm looking for people who will have a more visible and accessible voice to the local church and the ongoing missional conversation. You're one of those who is actively raising the issue of missions and challenging the church to think through and apply its missiology. Thank you. Geoff, Maybe I didn't make any sense here. I'm sorry. I was trying to express my desire to see the people who are involved in missions to speak more boldly and personally into the conversation. It would be great to see more (there are some) missionaries writing, speaking, blogging, and critiquing. Most of them are too busy actually doing ministry to try to raise awareness and teach missiology to people who aren't already listening. I know there are brands that people love. I'm a Mac user, a Moleskine journaler, a Coke drinker, and an Aqua-Velva man. Okay, not the last one, but I agree that there are products that can really influence how we do things, and I would never underestimate the power of marketing. But I think few people are looking to make a connection with a brand. When it comes to talking about missions, we tend to think in terms of organizations and programs rather than missional leaders. There are plenty out there, I just wish they had a stronger voice. David,
I’m really thankful for the “big names” in missions. So much of what we do on the mission field is informed, directly and indirectly, by their contribution. I guess I’m looking for people who will have a more visible and accessible voice to the local church and the ongoing missional conversation. You’re one of those who is actively raising the issue of missions and challenging the church to think through and apply its missiology. Thank you.

Geoff,
Maybe I didn’t make any sense here. I’m sorry. I was trying to express my desire to see the people who are involved in missions to speak more boldly and personally into the conversation. It would be great to see more (there are some) missionaries writing, speaking, blogging, and critiquing. Most of them are too busy actually doing ministry to try to raise awareness and teach missiology to people who aren’t already listening.

I know there are brands that people love. I’m a Mac user, a Moleskine journaler, a Coke drinker, and an Aqua-Velva man. Okay, not the last one, but I agree that there are products that can really influence how we do things, and I would never underestimate the power of marketing. But I think few people are looking to make a connection with a brand.

When it comes to talking about missions, we tend to think in terms of organizations and programs rather than missional leaders. There are plenty out there, I just wish they had a stronger voice.

]]> By: Geoff http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/comment-page-1/#comment-2771 Geoff Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:27:23 +0000 http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/#comment-2771 Ernst I don't quite agree with your logic. Firstly people do love brands. Mac users are passionate about telling their PC using friends how Apple has changed their life. Look at any of the big brand name facebook pages and you find thousands of people who are passionate about brands like coke etc. Secondly I think the big names have created their own 'brands'. Rick Warren for example isn't just an author and pastor. Many have heard and engaged with his brand (ie product/ideas) who haven't been pastored by him nor even read any of his books. Well know individuals and brands are that different. Ernst I don’t quite agree with your logic. Firstly people do love brands. Mac users are passionate about telling their PC using friends how Apple has changed their life. Look at any of the big brand name facebook pages and you find thousands of people who are passionate about brands like coke etc.

Secondly I think the big names have created their own ‘brands’. Rick Warren for example isn’t just an author and pastor. Many have heard and engaged with his brand (ie product/ideas) who haven’t been pastored by him nor even read any of his books. Well know individuals and brands are that different.

]]> By: David Rogers http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/comment-page-1/#comment-2770 David Rogers Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:28:41 +0000 http://missionsmisunderstood.com/2009/02/19/international-mission-brand/#comment-2770 I think part of the answer is that missions, by its very nature, is more of a behind the scenes, less splashy, type of enterprise, so you don't hear that much about "big name" folks. Yet, there are, and have been, some "big names" in missions. People like McGavran, Winter, Wagner, etc. Some "names" are more connected with organizations: Rankin, Garrison, Verwer, Cunningham, Yohannon, etc. There are leading missiologists, like Newbigin, Bosch, Escobar, Hesselgrave, etc., all more known in academic circles. Then there are people who are noteworthy missionary practitioners, but are known more within their particular circle of contacts, people like David Watson, and Wade Akins. I would also recommend reading back issues of Evangelical Missions Quarterly, and other similar literature, for some good advice from missionary practitioners. I think part of the answer is that missions, by its very nature, is more of a behind the scenes, less splashy, type of enterprise, so you don’t hear that much about “big name” folks. Yet, there are, and have been, some “big names” in missions. People like McGavran, Winter, Wagner, etc. Some “names” are more connected with organizations: Rankin, Garrison, Verwer, Cunningham, Yohannon, etc. There are leading missiologists, like Newbigin, Bosch, Escobar, Hesselgrave, etc., all more known in academic circles. Then there are people who are noteworthy missionary practitioners, but are known more within their particular circle of contacts, people like David Watson, and Wade Akins.

I would also recommend reading back issues of Evangelical Missions Quarterly, and other similar literature, for some good advice from missionary practitioners.

]]>