Don’t Let One Error in Missions Lead You to Another

Imagine celebrating a Bible study among new believers in a hard-to-reach country—while knowing it’s a study led by unbelievers. Imagine encouraging a communion service among the persecuted church in a difficult region—while approving the use of Coke and Oreos instead of bread and wine/juice.

What would lead well-meaning believers to such unbiblical practices? I’d suggest it’s an overreaction to past errors—that only leads to present ones. 

Over the last few decades, there’s been a concern that the Western church’s mission efforts have been paternalistic. Paternalism seeks to unduly regulate or exercise control over the actions of others. This could look like being unnecessarily slow in handing over leadership to locals and seeking to maintain control.

There has also been a trend to equate Western missions efforts with colonialism. Colonialism is an effort to conquer other people, subjugate them, and establish the culture of the colonists over the locals. In missions, colonialism could look like requiring Western forms of Christian expression like the architecture of a church building, a certain form of Sunday dress, Christian art, or posture during prayer.

Paternalism says, ‘Let me do it for you.’ Colonialism says, ‘Do it my way.’

It’s true that many people around the world remain confused by misrepresentations of Christianity that were spread by faulty mission models prioritizing Western forms over biblical faithfulness. A glaring example is the Catholic Inquisitions that spread to Asia and the Americas. 

Such concerns are real—but so is the danger of withholding God’s truth out of fear. 

WHEN HOLDING BACK HURTS 

That’s why my concern is to consider how we have overcorrected to our hurt—and to the hurt of those with whom we share the gospel. In an effort to avoid being paternalistic, I think we have often been hesitant to require what the Bible requires. In an effort to avoid bringing unnecessary foreign, cultural forms of Christianity, we have been hesitant to bring the non-negotiable forms of the Bible to all cultures. 

This overcorrection can unintentionally lead to patronizing indigenous people. By not teaching the full depth and breadth of biblical teaching, and expecting full obedience to the Bible, we are in effect communicating: They don’t need it, or worse, they can’t handle it.

How does this play out in practice? 

As mentioned earlier, I’ve seen people encourage the celebration of the Lord’s supper among the persecuted church using Coke and Oreos, as if Christ’s instructions for using bread and wine/grape juice were a Western idea. I’ve heard people celebrate the multiplication of Bible studies among Iranians to three and four generations that are not led by believers.

I’ve also read training material for pastors in North Africa that barely passes 4th-grade VBS material—all the while, North African colleges are teaching students law, business, and technology. In the Middle East, I’ve seen people promote gathering as the church via a virtual reality headset, as if gathering physically is a Western idea. 

I’ve heard of missionaries abandoning young believers in Asia, thinking they’ve provided enough training,  and not wanting to “get in the way of the locals.” This resulted in the hurt, confusion, and floundering of these genuine, yet infant Christians.

None of this is a critique of the global church. It is a critique of the West for giving less to the global church.

WHY DO WE GIVE LESS?

I think there are two root causes of this overcorrection: First, we’ve failed to distinguish clearly between what is a Western cultural expression of Christianity and what is a biblical norm or principle. 

We’ve also failed to recognize that, as ambassadors of Christ, we do come with authority—not inherent authority, but with God’s authority—to seek to regulate the actions of others by God’s Word. It is not patronizing to teach the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), it is not colonialism to demand repentance from cultural sins (1 Pet 1:18) and obedience to the norms of Scripture, including how to do church (1 Tim 3:15).

What are the effects of this overcorrection? I see three main problems:  

1. In seeking not be too controlling for fear of being paternalistic, we hand over leadership too quickly to the unqualified. The goal ought to be raising up local leaders to lead the church (Titus 1:5). But we must raise up qualified leaders (Titus 1:6–9). Requiring that a leader be biblically qualified is not paternalistic.

2.  In seeking not be “colonial” or bring in what we thinkis our culture, we can develop a poor understanding of what a church is. That leads us to plant churches that are weak (at best) or no churches at all. A Bible study is not a church. A group of Christians is not a church. Requiring that a church possess the biblical traits of a church (such as leaders, baptism, membership, discipline, and communion) is not colonialism. It’s biblical.

3. In seeking not to be overbearing, we sometimes teach shallow and light biblical teaching. When the Bible says Christians should mature from milk to meat (Heb 5:12–13), we think that to urge someone to chew on meat would be too paternalistic—so we leave them sustained by only milk. That leaves them vulnerable (Eph 4:12–14).  All of this is a way of patronizing and disrespecting the people in the church, as if they could not handle deeper teaching.

SEEKING A BIBLICAL WAY

The mission field is different in many ways from our experiences at home. But when it comes to biblical principles, it ought to be the same. 

One test I’ve employed over the years to see if we’ve fallen prey to this overcorrection is to ask these questions: Would you do this at your own church? Would you hand over leadership to unqualified men? Would you call a Bible study a church? Would you only teach the basics of Christianity to your congregations and then expect them to be mature spouses, employees, citizens able to be the salt and light of the earth?

If we wouldn’t do it at home, we shouldn’t do it overseas. It’s patronizing to give the nations less than we give ourselves—or to give them less than Jesus commanded: “Go…make disciples of all nations…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

If paternalism says, ‘Let me do it for you,’ and colonialism says, ‘Do it my way,’—patronizing says: ‘Figure it out on your own, we don’t want to get in the way.’ A faithful approach ought to be: “Let’s do it the biblical way.”