God Directed Deviations

Culture, Discipleship, Evangelism, Making Disciples, Ministry, Missiology, Mission, Morality and Ethics, Philosophy, Religion, Salvation, The Gospel

That ‘I’ Might Save Some…

feet-sandalsPaul the Apostle, in talking to the people of in the city of Corinth said this:
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.” (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)
As a missionary who has been called to serve in one of the most culturally diverse regions on the planet, these verses speak to me deeply.  Becoming all things to all people can be a daunting task. It comes at a price. That price is ‘self.’ I like to think of what I do as ‘becoming indigenous’ in whatever sub-culture I find myself in. I don’t necessarily like the phrase “I’m like a chameleon,” because at best a chameleon can only mimic color.
Becoming all things to all people is not about blending in with your environment for safety,  it’s more like  putting yourself at risk to become a part of, and a participator in it.
That participation is enfleshed in its joys, nuances, struggles, and sufferings. Paul says 3 times that his end goal, or trajectory was to ‘win people.’
I know that can cause some to recoil because of oppressive evangelism and shallow discipleship ‘techniques,’ but Paul’s path was not only in the identification of the people group that he may have been with in the moment, but also to walk through and rediscover the gospel and its ramifications for them over and over again in it. He wanted to ‘win’ the Jews to Christ. he wanted to ‘win’ those who were under the law (part of existing religious systems). He also wanted to ‘win’ those who were ‘not under the law’ (those not under religious systems).
Through covenants of religious systems and vacancy of the same, through philosophies directly opposed, through threat of physical harm, and through necessitated dependence on God for provision and protection, Pail persisted.
His terminus? Two things:
 “So that I may by all means save some.”
 “So that I may become a fellow partaker of it.”
Yes, ‘salvation’ of others was of primary importance to him. But, I suspect, for Paul, bringing one to salvation looked a lot different than it does for most today.
One thing that bugs me in this passage is the use of Paul’s word “I.” “I” have made myself a slave to all. So that “I” might win more. “So that “I” might win Jews. So that “I” might win those without the law. “I’ became weak. “I” have become all things to all to all people that “I” might save some.
I am sure Paul’s intention was not to be arrogant. But, it sure sounds that way.  The question, I suppose, is whether it was received that way by his audience, or whether his life was so given over to God that it was obvious that when he said “I” it was because of a result fashioned in Him by someone outside of himself.
I do very much appreciate the wording in the last sentence though. “I do all things for the sake of the gospel that “I” might become a fellow partaker of it.” It shows humility if not a certain lack of assuredness. This is real, this is human. This is the sort of transparency and vulnerability that genuinely enables one to become all things to all people so that some might be saved.
What about you? Does Paul’s use of the word “I” bother you?
Are there certain people who ‘just don’t have what it takes’ to be all things to all people?
Would you feel comfortable, or confident in saying “I have become all things to all people that I might save some?” 
Church, Making Disciples, Missiology, Mission, Missional, Short-Term Missions, Social Justice, Uncategorized

From 0 (Zero) to Mission in 5…4…3…2…

At the outset, I will say that this article is not about the woes of short-term missions. That topic has been treated exhaustively by me and others.

A little background:

I am a missionary in the Andes Mountains Cloud Forest Region of Ecuador. In our initial years here, we fell, rather quickly, into the mode of hosting short-term mission teams. After all, that is what missionaries are ’supposed to do’ right? It was good, but it did make it harder for us to get our footing in the local cultures and develop more than surface relationships with those we were supposed to be serving. We became primarily facilitators of other people’s mission goals rather than taking the time to find our place in and amongst the diverse people groups here. Since all of those visiting teams ‘demanded’ follow-up of THEIR work, it never truly let us flourish in ours.  It was okay, many lives were touched, there was genuine transformation, and a lot of people heard the good news. After a few years, we discovered, but barely admitted to ourselves, that this cycle was actually disruptive to the rhythm of our mission life and calling.

One of the saving graces in hosting short-term mission teams, for me at least, was the opportunity to question, shift, and encourage my fellow harvest workers to put aside their paradigms for a while and embrace the idea that there is more than one way to do this thing we call mission, and that creativity was not only allowed within it, but should be encouraged and fostered while ‘on it.’

As agenda driven as most short-term teams are, we found it hard to get them out of ‘extreme ministry mode,’ and settle into the people without pressure. The combination of translators, gifts, breaking routines, music, painting buildings, providing medical care, drilling water wells, feeding people, and many other activities certainly peaked curiosity and opened doors to the communication of the gospel, but in the end there was always a ‘decision’ to be made, a prayer to be prayed, a card to sign, or some other notch-istic action that ‘closed the deal.’

Decisions were short lived and commitments to following Christ lasted on the average of about 3 weeks to 3 months. Something had to change. We weren’t making disciples. Even with the full force of resource rich churches from the United states, the gospel we were preaching had a shelf-life.

Now, the notion of planting a church, ‘pastoring’ it, raising up leaders, and sending out indigenous people from the same is distasteful to me. That archetype may have proved effective in in times past and in certain places, but it can no longer be assumed to be so.

I just wanted to participate in Jesus’ plan to make disciple making people’s (Matthew 28:19,20), and have them figure out the best ways to gather in and move out on their own in a way that made sense or was relevant to them. I wanted others to know, better yet, to taste and experience God’s Kingdom now in this life as well as in eternity. So after much spiritual angst, we began to change our approach to EVERYTHING.

Before continuing, I’m not suggesting that these issues or challenges are limited to North American short-term missions, because I’ve seen and experienced the same from teams coming from Japan, Germany, Australia, England, and other South American countries.

We started taking a look at the gospel we were preaching and found it lacking. If the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for those that believe (Romans 1:16), and if it is God’s power tool to carry unbelievers to faith and believers to ever increasing faith (Romans 1:17), then we should see powerful results in the preaching of it. Our gospel was not powerfully resulting in others coming to know and receive Jesus. (John 1:12,13).  Getting others to ‘accept Jesus into their hearts’ was easy, but it is not the goal of biblical evangelism nor founded on scripture. It’s easy to get others to make a religious choice between heaven and hell when the gospel of our religion limits the options to places instead of a person. The person of Jesus

We were faced with the reality that either of two things were possible:

 1.  The receiver’s hearts had not been prepped by the Spirit,


 2.  Our gospel was incorrect, incomplete, and inconsistent with our lives.

While we were aggressively seeking alternative ways to breach communities with the good news of the Kingdom, we were still hosting mission teams and conflicts would arise because we weren’t doing things the way they were used to or even expecting. It’s sad to admit, but we were putting on shows and creating disingenuous ambience so that religious activity addicts (not all) could get their rocks off. We had become pimps of shallow mission work.

I know… let that sink in for a moment. It wasn’t easy to write either.

Fast forward about 6 years. After losing supporters for our unorthodox ways, after heated discussions, after character assassinations, after judgemental questioning and dismissive attitudes, after betrayal by those closest to us, after death threats, after robberies, after mud-slides, and after many more trials that don’t come with short-term jaunts, we settled in to where we are now.

One of my dreams, or better yet, passions, has always been to develop local leaders via slow persistent discipleship to participate in and carry on mission work here in Ecuador with other Ecuadorians. We’ve been pretty good at that in the last 5 years. There has been ‘success,’ if you can call it that, resulting in over a dozen generations of disciples being made, a full-orbed gospel going out to numerous communities that have never heard it, and yes, even some scattered, more traditional, church plants.

Still though, I have always looked and yearned for that perfect short-term mission experience. It was never going to happen because my perception of it was too idealistic and I was coming at it with the proverbial chip on my shoulder. But, I do believe that short-term practice can be optimized, or should I say honed, to bring about the best of possible outcomes. Over the past few years we have had some of those. Teams have come without agendas other than to lean into God and people, and to listen to the Spirit’s direction in going, doing, and saying what He wills. When that happens it’s beautiful.

Backtrack about 8 months… A young Ecuadorian man reaches out to me after hearing about the good things that are happening in the region. He comes for a visit and we talk. He tells me that he is part of another BIG church in another city here in Ecuador. He tells me that while the denomination of this church was formed and birthed in mission, it has NEVER done any local mission. I decided to take him to a community that knew hardly anything of church, bibles, Jesus, or Christianity, and show him his own people in their day to day lives. We visited several families, the local school, and some community leaders. We asked for permission to come back to share a Message from God. That simple, no pretense, no ulterior motives, not the slightest bit of acceptable ecclesiastical deception.

He left encouraged and motivated to bring back a team from that church. A team of university students that have never done this kind of mission work outside the walls of their own church. He decided that the ministry of mission must not be contained, and that being in Christ necessitates going in His name and liberating missions from its ecclesiastical enclaves. He began to train his team. Selling this mission work to his church proved to be difficult because, like most established churches, the bulk of their resources is directed towards the sustaining of their own facilities and programs. But, they did catch his vision. The church as a whole, along with this young man, pushed forward towards becoming ‘missional.’

Securing finances, clothing, food, shoes, people, and proper attitudes didn’t come easy, but it did come. During the process I was slightly dreading this upcoming mission ministry because I thought that they too were already tainted by rigid paradigms and rippling traditions from retro eras. I was growing weary of this constant struggle to move people from this inadequate impulse to do things as they always have been done. I was tired of fighting against the gravity of standardized and assumed missionary movements.

They show up here in the region, all wearing cleverly designed matching T-shirts. I’ll be honest, thought “God help me.” “Here we go again,” I thought, while trying to decide if I was going to play along for the sake of being polite.

There was a transportation glitch. We were supposed to have a single bus to head out to the community we were going to work in. That didn’t happen. Instead, and at the last minute, we piled into 5 vehicles with much discomfort. I felt like if someone hiccuped, I would be ejected onto some lonely Ecuadorian road. My attitude was poor, I was tired, and my heart just wasn’t in it.

We finally made to our destination. I literally jumped out of the car and walked away from the team. “Get your head in the game” I repeated to myself… “Maybe it will be different” I thought… “Maybe this will truly be one of those mission experiences which sets the tone for these young people for the rest of their lives.” Maybe…

So, I shook it off and went directly to the local elementary school and spoke with the director there reminding her of the permission she granted to us to come in and play games with the kids, share the gospel, etc. She trusted me because I had built up a relationship with her and others in the previous months. I had even brought a couple of short-term mission teams there from the states to ‘plow up the ground.’

Within 5 minutes this team was on it. There was no need for translators, there was no waiting period for acceptance, there was no wondering about trust, there were no cultural barriers to communication, and there was no ‘mustered’ politeness to receive people from another country. The kids at the school and the Ecuadorians from the other city immediately melded.

I was shocked. I was shocked to see how well they had been prepared. I was shocked to see 0 (Zero) transition time from encounter to action. And, I don’t mean prepared to deliver their shtick. They were prepared to follow the rhythm and flow of the Spirit, they were perceptive and discerning, they were physically, emotionally, and spiritually ‘geared up’ to be sensitive to the needs of the moment, and they were putting all of that into instant action. Yes, there were songs and sing alongs, there was dancing and games, there were lollipops and trinkets, and there were, of course, those matching T-shirts. But, beyond that this team was different.
As I walked around to the different groups and listened to the team speaking with the kids and dealing with real issues in very real ways I smiled. Then, as I continued, I cried. This was it! This is what I had dreamt about. This was the impact that I have longed to see for a very long time. After visiting with the kids at the school, we went house to house visiting with the parents of the children. There were no tracts or clever methodologies, just genuine interest in hearing about their lives, loves, and challenges. Counsel was offered, questions were asked, and real conversations were had in un-fabricated and un-contrived contexts.

Day 1 -Complete success.

Days 2 and 3 followed suit. Day 2 involved a lot of paying attention to the urgent needs of the community and interacting with the children at the school one more time followed by more time in the community going house to house. Each day had it’s gospel theme and was built on the previous.

Day 3 – Celebration!

We were fortunate to have encountered THE ENTIRE community in a community work project. Over 250 people in all. The community received us, we spent more time with the kids, we talked to all of their moms and we conversed with all of the men in the community. The team bandaged up wounds, poured cold water on those exposed to too much heat, shoed children, fed people, wept with those who wept, counseled those in need of counseling, and loved them all while talking about Jesus and Kingdom when It was natural do so.  I found myself weeping a lot during these days and being on the receiving end of insight and encouragement.

The resource to impact ratio was incredible. What they spent in preparation, securing the things for physical relief and social action, as well as solid missiological ‘training,’ paled in comparison to a mission team coming from another country. In fact, the whole thing, 29 people from another city here in Ecuador, 3 days of accommodations, transportation, foodstuffs, clothing, shoes, snacks, books, and much more cost less than what several of the most popular short-term mission sending agencies charge to send 1 person for 5-7 days here from the United States. Think about that for a moment, 29 to 1!

In mission circles, and especially short-term mission circled, we’re always talking about maximum effectiveness and impact. (The biggest bang for the buck) This was that. This was more than achieving an objective, this was the realization of a dream.

This was mission in 5…4…3…2

Just one question today; What do you take away from this?

Christianity, Culture, Discipleship, Mission, Missional

Losing Your Missional Rhythm?

11220852_10153386353550087_4264804667560796886_nI have been participating in what’s commonly called a ‘drum circle’ for the better part of the last 4 months. People from all over the world have come to our tiny town in the middle of the Andean Cloud Forest to sit in and make beats.  Sometimes people bring the most bizarre sort of percussion instruments that produce exquisitely unique sounds.  It’s a very eclectic, but fun community of hippies, nomads, and regular folk looking for diversion, expression, and communion. Many of the indigenous have taken the time to make their own drums and percussion instruments consisting of materials found locally. I too have made several.

Javier, the one who spent nearly 3 weeks with me in teaching to make a drum, has left our group for a time. He’s also the one that establishes the base beat or rhythm when we gather together to play.  ‘Javi,’ as they call him is a consciencous man from another country who has carved out a life here. He’s a ‘philosopher’ in the true sense of the word, and has much to say about the good treatment of other people, justice, and drumming.

Without Javi at our drum circle, we struggled and are struggling a bit in establishing a good corporate rhythm. It’s as if he could sense the angst, or joy, or anger of the group and begin a base beat that reflected or realeased the same. Once Javi begins playing the rest of the group begins as well. In the beginning of a session, there’s a lot of synchronicity. Then comes the improvisation. While Javi maintains the base beat, people begin to experiment and explore, and the sounds of the community erupt with unique rhythms, songs, and sounds that would make no sense were they to exist by themselves.

Now that Javi is gone, several have tried to establish that base beat at our circle, but it’s proved difficult. The first drummer, the one who dares to expose him or herself, really takes a risk. If that person’s rhythm is off or just plain bad, the rest will try to accompany, but it usually ends up in a porridge of dissonance.

I was thinking about how mission is like this. There are lots of ‘mission,’ or even ‘missional’ leaders that are gifted in sensing the pulse of a local culture and establishing base beats or rhythm of a movement. Others come along side and there’s overwhelming synchronicity.  But I think we make our Javi’s into more than they are supposed to be and try to capture, or even worse ‘sell’ that synchronicity, even when the Javi is well on to the next beat. We, the church, aren’t open to improvisation and the diverse rhythms of the Holy Spirit. By the time a mission rhythm is noticed or the fruit of a movement is recognized, the Holy Spirit is on to something else and we just keep relishing in the inaugural beats.

We call these missional rhythm establishers ‘leaders’ or even ‘missional gurus,’ but I think many of them would cringe at the idea. Javi would never say that he leads the drum circle. But he senses, feels the tone, and strikes the skin of his drum with an uncanny discernment.

Somewhere along the missional way, we’ve lost our Javi’s or forced them to beat the same drums and repeat the same rhythms as everyone else. We’ve made then into ‘leaders’ and ‘pastors’ with all of the binding assumptions and attachments and lost our improv. I miss Javi at our circle. Now, after a few weeks, other Javi’s are emerging. Others are sensing the mood and the pulse and improv is picking up again.

The missional movement, by choice or force, has lost it’s rhythm. It’s lost its Javi’s. The normal reactions to those who would stick their necks out and dare to drum a different beat are theological warfare, competition for recognition, and even outright expulsion from community.

They don’t want to lead, they just want to play the drum in a way that inspires others to do likewise and forge environments of creativity, freedom, improvisation, and a good beat.

Has the missional movement lost its rhythm?  

Blogging, Christianity, Church, Discipleship, Ecclesiology, Hierarchy, Making Disciples, Missiology, Missions, Organic, Short-Term Missions, The Church, Theology

The Church Acquires its Real Nature, Unique Identity, and True Vocation from Mission. God’s Mission.

3leaves“The church is a community of faith. Under no circumstances should we lose this very concept of the church. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not establish an institution that came to be called “church.” He gave a particular mission to his disciples: Go forth into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 10: 15). In fact the raison d’être (reason for existence) of our church, its true richness and real value is neither in its structure nor in its hierarchy, neither in its theology nor in its spirituality. Its true richness lies in its missionary engagement, evangelistic witness and diakonal action. We should remind ourselves that mission does not come from the church; the church acquires its real nature, unique identity and true vocation from mission. Hence a church becomes church when it fulfills its missionary calling.” ~ Aram K’eshishean

This post is the third in a series of posts that are designed to get your mission committees, small groups, cohorts, and bible studies talking about mission.  The first, “Two Churches, One City, Almost No Common Ground in Mission,” is an interactive scenario which can create a lively discussion. The second, “The ‘Church’ Only Exists When She Exercises Her Missionary Charge.” is a round table discussion of sorts with 3 questions at the end.  Feel free to tweet any of the short quotes above by hitting the ‘tweet this’ link after each.

In an age where people do and don’t want to be indemnified by there activities, the church’s indignity always come by being and doing. In Him we live and move and have our being. (Acts 17:28)

Are you ‘in Christ?’ ~ “But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” (Ephesians 2:13)

Are you ‘living’ for and in Him? ~ “So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him.” (Colossians 2:6)

Are you moving in Him? ~ “As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.” (John 17:18)

‘Being the Church,’ a popular sound bite, is only possible by being in Christ, living for and in Him, and moving as he would move. You can’t just “be the church” without mission. The church locally become a local church when she engages mission. If the local church spends most of it’s energy, time, resources, and money sustaining its own being, then it’s skipping steps one through three and trying to leapfrog into a false identity as a ‘Christian Church.’ Likewise a follower of Christ can not be identified by simply ‘being.’ Individuals must also be in Christ, live in and for Him, and move as He would move.


Do you agree or disagree with  Aram K’eshishean’s quote and my follow-up? Why? 






APEST, Apostles, Christianity, Culture, Ecclesiology, Evangelists, God's Kingdom, Hermeneutics, Hierarchy, Leadership, Missiology, Mission, Missions, Pastors, Prophets, Short-Term Missions, Social Justice, The Church, Theology

Let’s Rescue Missionaries from the ‘Pastorate.’

HTB19_eeFVXXXXcxXVXXq6xXFXXXLInsanity, according to Albert Einstein is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The ‘pastorate,’ an unfortunate term, has caught many a missionary by the tail and impeded the work of God in the world. When the lasso of the pastorate is thrown around the missionary, and likewise the assumption; ‘all missionaries are pastors,’ is insisted on or strongly insinuated, it has grave consequences for pastors and missionaries and to mission and church.

1.  It puts an unnecessary yoke on the missionary who may be gifted in other ways.

Not every missionary is given the Ephesians 4:11 gift of being pastoral. In fact, most missionaries are apostolic, evangelistic, and prophetic. To restrain the missionary or to demand the pastoral function of a missionary is to be either biblically presumptuous or just plain lazy. That one is sent of God into the world to herald the good news (mark 16:15), to be salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16) in foreign contexts, or even to ‘do justice’ (Micah 6:8) does not require a pastor or a person with pastoral gifting.

2.   It’s backwards.

It’s Christology – Missiology – Ecclesiology.  First comes Jesus in all things concerning mission and church. Christ informs mission and mission informs church. Jesus determines the mission through the Holy Spirit, and the mission determines church. To place pastoral authority over mission is to put church before mission. This is completely backwards.  If it were true, then you’d have to create a pastor before you could have a missionary.  Think about that for a moment. The trajectory to being a missionary, if the current systems of things are correct, is to train up pastors and then release some of them as missionaries.
You’d be hard pressed to substantiate that from scripture.  The pastor derives his authority from being in the midst of a congregation working and worshiping WITHIN them, not OVER them. (1 Peter 5:1-4) The church doesn’t have a mission. The Mission, God’s mission has a Church. If there are key roles which seem to have authority on mission, then that authority should be derived from the foundation laying work of people gifted in the apostolic and prophetic. The pastor’s leadership role in mission may be third at best. Don’t trust a pastor who wants to run the mission program and keep control over it. Trust the pastor who is disposed to leaving his congregation behind with a well developed group of leaders to search for the one lost sheep. That’s the heart of a pastor.
3.  It creates something which Jesus was emphatically against.
Hierarchies, or tiered structures of authority are not to be practiced by the church. Jesus’ words in Matthew 20:25,26 and Mark 10:42, 43 are precise in their propositions and clearly understood by their audience.
“You know that those who are considered rulers of the unbelievers use their self-given authority to dominate, or ‘lord over’ others, then their higher officials exercise authority over them, and so on… It shouldn’t be that way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.”
By the way, the word ‘servant’ in those passages is the word ‘deacon’ in Greek, and the deacons serve ‘among’ the brethren, not over them.
The church plays a joke on itself if localities of it believe they can establish hierarchies without ‘lording over’ others. The pastor is not the key person in effective mission, the first mobilizer, the central catalyst, or even the one in charge of mission. To make him so is to reject Jesus teaching.

4.  It reinforces the unbiblical Idea that only an ordained pastor can commission a missionary.

‘Pastor’ is not a title. It’s a gift. The pastor is not in charge of the congregation and is not an extension of God’s authority on earth. The pastor does not commission the missionary. The pastor obeys the Holy Spirit and with the congregation, sends them out with every resource available from the local congregation. That includes the prayer, the equipping, the resources, and the commitment to follow through until the end of their journeys. The pastor, like the missionary, obeys the Holy spirit. It would be a faulty hermeneutic to assume that the church in Antioch ‘commissioned’ or ‘ordained’ Paul and Barnabas. They did not. The Antioch church obeyed the Spirit. That’s it. Paul and Barnabas obeyed the Spirit. That’s it. In fact, if we look closer at Acts 13:1-3, we’ll see that pastors are not mentioned, and the ones who laid hands on Paul on Barnabas were most likely those who were gifted in the prophetic and teaching.

5.  It sidelines the majority of the church and sustains the ill-conceived notion of a clergy laity divide.

 Missionary development, formation, and sending is done by everyone in the local church and all others in the universal church that have influence, or those who are met ‘along the way.’  Everyone gets to participate in the building up of a missionary. Everyone gets to be a missionary in that sense. Whether one goes or stays has little to do with the missionary impulse to live as sent ones in the world. (John 17:21) There is no clergy and laity in the church. If there’s no clergy, there’s no ‘Pastor’ in the commonly accepted notion of the word.
6.  It usurps and distorts Ephesians 4:11-16
Making the pastor the key to missions or requiring the pastor-ization of the missionary is an act of violence to people, to the word of God, and to mission itself. The church, for the better part of the last few centuries, has excised the apostle, prophet, and even the evangelist from the ‘the work’ (mission) of God in the world. The pastor-teacher has taken control, pridefully, of everything. The weekly service, the centrality of that event, the pulpit, and the pastor have done a hostile takeover of mission. This is not to be so among you.  That is unless, of course you actually think that the church has already
“attained to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13)  If it has, then you’re right, there are no more apostles, prophets, and evangelists. But, then again, there would be no pastors either.
It’s time to stop. A missionary is a wonderful gift of God whose talents and abilities can be as diverse as God’s creation itself. The missionary is willing to pay a price that few understand. The missionary shouldn’t have to pay the piper of a domineering pastor who wants to control at a distance. A missionary can be pastoral, but doesn’t have to be. Stop automatically assuming that missionaries are pastors. Stop training up missionaries to be pastors when they could just as well be prophets, or evangelists, or even apostles and teachers. Stop calling every missionary you see ‘pastor,’ and call them ‘brother,’ or ‘sister’ instead. Stop using pastoral theology as a catch-all in the preparation of a missionary. Stop teaching homiletics to better the show and start equipping servants/deacons to be great sent ones in the Kingdom of God. If the church keeps going back to those things which aren’t working, then by definition, we’re insane. As always, a few questions:

Who leads mission in the local church’s sphere of influence?

Who leads mission where there is no local church?

Who leads mission where there are multiple overlapping local churches?
Two more:
Do missionaries have to be pastors?
What does it mean to ‘lead mission’ anyway?