Paul Akin | The Number One Reason Missionaries Go Home

From https://www.imb.org/2017/05/25/number-one-reason-missionaries-go-home/:

---

The most common reason missionaries go home is not due to lack of money, illness, terrorism, homesickness, or even a lack of fruit or response to the gospel.

Regretfully, the number one reason is due to conflict with other missionaries.

Yes, you read that correctly.

From my own personal experience on the field and after five years training, equipping, and sending missionaries, I have witnessed this truth firsthand. In all my travels around the world, I’ve spent countless days with missionary teams of all types, sizes, and makeups and one reality remains true: none of them are perfect.

In fact, toward the end of the 20th century the World Evangelical Alliance released a significant study that found “conflict with peers” as the top reason North American missionaries leave the mission field.

Why Teams?

In light of the seemingly inevitable conflict with other missionaries, many may wonder why we emphasize teams. The simple answer is that this is the example and model we see in the Bible. Team is the predominant model we see for mission work in the New Testament. Jesus and his disciples lived together and did ministry together. Paul and Barnabas—set apart by the Holy Spirit and the church in Antioch—went out together on the first missionary journey.

We see further evidence of teams on mission in Paul’s “apostolic band.” One scholar notes that in the New Testament, at least 55 men and 17 women were associated with Paul on his missionary journeys. All this to say, there are biblical, practical, and pastoral reasons why we encourage the formation and sending of missionary teams.

Five Challenges for Missionary Teams

Conflict within missionary teams is inevitable in a fallen world. Here are five challenges that threaten all missionaries and missionary teams.

1. Unmet expectations.

Whether we realize it or not, we all arrive on the mission field with certain expectations. These expectations are shaped and formed by our previous experiences. Unmet expectations related to missionary teams are a real problem, especially for young missionaries with an idealistic perspective of the mission field.

2. Conflict equation.

Sinful people + work with other sinful people + those people trying to witness to and reach other sinful people = lots of sinful people and potential for conflict.

When you join a team on the mission field, you are stepping into this conflict equation and you must acknowledge that reality.

3. Missionary life is stressful.

Missionary life is filled with stress and pressure, and much of it is subconscious. Things that seemed so simple—like driving, grocery shopping, paying bills, or sleeping—suddenly become very challenging and stressful. It’s not always easy to articulate and identify, but subconscious stress is a reality for many missionaries and missionary teams around the world.

4. Jealousy can thrive.

We’re creatures who naturally like to compare ourselves with others. Teams often live life together and are around each other often, so there is a great tendency for envy to creep in. If we aren’t careful, we can compare, become jealous, and in the process destroy a team with our own pride.

5. Sin remains a constant reality.

The bottom line is that we’re sinful people. We’re selfish, we’re prideful, and when put in stressful situations, we’re often poor teammates and partners in the Great Commission.

What’s the Solution?

So, in light of these challenges, what are missionaries and missionary teams supposed to do?

1. Missionaries need to have a realistic perspective of team.

Missionary teams are not perfect and are made up of sinful people. Therefore, beware of going to the mission field with an idealistic and utopian perspective of team.

2. Missionaries must strive to be flexible and adaptable.

Nobody likes teaming with high maintenance people. Most missionaries are entering a culture where they have little control over most things that happen and, as a result, flexibility and adaptability are critical.

3. Missionaries ought to prepare spiritually, physically, and emotionally before going to the field.

As Mack Stiles once wrote, “There is no such thing as transformation by aviation.” Missionaries must intentionally pursue intimacy with Christ and learn to abide in him long before they ever cross geographical, cultural, and linguistic barriers.

In the end, being a good teammate is not just a matter of effort, though that’s important; it’s a matter of grace and mercy. We need God’s grace and mercy on a moment-by-moment basis. We need the gospel to change us from the inside out. We need the Holy Spirit to change our hearts, wills, desires, and affection—and in the process make us more like Jesus.

That is the only way we can be the kind of teammates who honor God and help fuel the spread of the gospel to the ends of the earth.

“Discipleship” as Key Sound Bite for Communicating Biblical Mission

As someone who is involved in missions leadership, I understand the challenges facing evangelical sending agencies today in communicating vision, purpose, branding, and management. We all want to be unique, relevant, and Biblical.

I also understand that there are certain trends that rise and fall in the missions scene.  Church planting was all the rage a few years ago. And now it’s movements. Other trends include the rise of the term ‘transformation’ and the emphasis off the church and onto the kingdom.  This is related with holistic or integrated mission and on caring for the poor. Other long-lasting trends include the unreached or least-reached, and the use of metrics to evaluate our effectiveness. Of course every trend and emphasis has a way of highlighting only part of the nature of Biblical mission.

But is there a way for sending agencies to tie all of this together in a way that is not reductionistic?

Maybe. How about “discipleship?”

I’m interested all the talk these days on disciple-making movements. It might just be trend as well, but somehow I think that, as a necessary sound bite used in communication, it comes closer to recapturing the essence of what we’re doing across ALL contexts, more than church planting or integrated development or peace-making or proclamation or compassionate evangelism.

I want to commend Melanie McNeil’s Mission Paradigms: Is Discipleship Important? to you. It’s not an eloquent article (she’s a better writer than I am!), and I don’t agree with everything the says, but she makes a case of discipleship to be a key metaphor to reclaim Biblical mission in our world today (of course, discipleship has to be properly defined!).  From the conclusion:

We have explored the way the task of mission is described today by modern mission agencies, and I have argued that the reductionism of modern missions has resulted in a narrow definition of God’s commission. I have shown that the definitions of the task being used today fail to embrace the whole of God’s vision for the world he created. Whole life discipleship, the radical journey into relationship, and maturity of relationship with God is the core of God making his name known in the nations. God invites us to participate with His mission, and this will require a radical shift in the mission paradigms of today.

I have sought to demonstrate that such a shift opens up paths of radical transformation that impact both lives and communities, but it will come at a cost. The question is whether we in missions, and the Church, are prepared to count the cost and move into new things together with God, and with each other.

The review of methods and vision and mission statements here is not a judgment on any individual agency or strategy. It is a call for all of us who are disciples of Jesus Christ to embrace whole life discipleship and the radical rule of God in our lives and organisations.

Related Post: The Purpose (Vision) and Task (Mission) of Missions

Conventional vs. Complexity Leadership

Lots of food for thought here: I’m thinking about epistemology, ontology, and Biblical visions of the future in regards to leadership- in these areas, the author and I are not on the same page. 

But at the least, this theory corrects one-man-show type of leadership, and argues for a more relational understanding that requires more humility and is more focused on the process than the outcome. This could be an exercise in pendulum swinging, but I find it to be a stimulating counterpoint the typical Maxwell/Hybels leadership mantas. 

From Barrett C. Brown, Complexity Leadership: An Overview and Key Limitations:

Conventional Leadership	Complexity Leadership
Leaders specify desired futures.	Leaders provide linkages to emergent structures by enhancing connections among organizational members.
Leaders direct change.	Leaders try to make sense of patterns in small changes.
Leaders eliminate disorder and the gap between intentions and reality.	Leaders are destabilizers who encourage disequilibrium and disrupt existing patterns of behavior.
Leaders influence others to enact desired futures.	Leaders encourage processes that enable emergent order.

Through the lens of conventional leadership, the world is assumed to be knowable and desired organizational futures are considered achievable through focused planning and the use of control mechanisms. Complexity scientists counter that uncertainty is a better starting point. Specifically, they contend that the world is not knowable, systems are not predictable, and living systems cannot be forced along a linear trajectory toward a predetermined future. There are four myths of conventional leadership that are therefore dispelled by the application of complexity sciences: leaders specify desired futures, leaders direct change, leaders eliminate disorder and the gap between intentions and reality; and leader influence others to enact desired futures. The behaviors of emergent leadership, based upon complexity science, which replace these “myths”, are summarized below.

Myth 1: Leaders specify desired futures. Conventional leadership worldviews frame leaders as visionaries, who see the future, chart the destination, and guide their organizations toward that destination. The repeated prescription is to: clarify the organization’s desired future, scan the external environment, design the requisite actions, and remove any obstacles. Complexity theorists suggest that organizational unpredictability often comes from within the organization, through the interactions of its members, which are not controlled by its leader. It is usually organizational members that develop the ideas that lead to productive futures for the organization, arguably a more important source of ideas than the vision of the leader at the top of an organization. Therefore, complex leaders should focus on enabling productive futures rather than controlling them (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001). Thus, the “new reality” to replace Myth #1 is that “leaders provide linkages to emergent structures by enhancing connections among organizational members” (Plowman & Duchon, 2008, p. 139). This is based upon the complexity theory principle of emergent self-organization, in which the interaction of individual agents, exchange of information amongst them, and continuous adaptation of feedback from each other creates a new system level order.

Myth #2: Leaders direct change. Leadership theorists often contend that the essence of leadership is to lead change (e.g., Kotter, 1996). One of the principles of complexity theory concerns sensitivity to initial conditions. It notes that major, unpredictable consequences can arise out of small fluctuations in initial conditions (Kauffman, 1995). Thus small changes at anytime, anywhere in the system, can cascade and lead to massive change that may be inconsistent with the leader’s change vision. The new reality to replace this myth, then, is that “leaders try to make sense of patterns in small changes” (Plowman & Duchon, 2008, p. 141). By detecting and labeling patterns in the midst of emergent change, leaders have a greater chance of helping their organizations to respond effectively.

Myth #3: Leaders eliminate disorder and the gap between intentions and reality. Leaders are typically seen as needing to influence others to accomplish the tasks required to achieve organizational objectives. They are also expected to minimize conflict and cultivate harmonious relationships, such as in the case of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Complexity theorists contend that organizations are not characterized by stability and harmony, but rather exist on a continuum between stability and instability (Prigogine, 1997; Stacey, 1996). As organizations gravitate toward greater instability, due to destabilizing forces, new, emergent ideas and innovations arise. Therefore, rather than constantly attempting to stabilize an organization, leaders can at times help their organizations to benefit by being a source of disorder and destabilization. The new reality to replace Myth #3 is therefore: “leaders are destabilizers who encourage disequilibrium and disrupt existing patterns of behavior” (Plowman & Duchon, 2008, p. 142).

Myth #4: Leaders influence others to enact desired futures. The core of leadership is often considered to be influence. Two assumptions about influence run counter to a principle of complexity science. First, influence is often based upon the assumption that a leader knows what needs to be done and that the leader can subsequently influence those who need it to bring about a desired future state. These notions are, in turn, grounded in assumptions of linearity: that changes in one variable lead to anticipated changes in another. Complexity science, though, is based upon nonlinear interactions, in which multiple agents with varying agendas engage and influence each other’s actions. Nonlinear, living systems can learn, though. With such complexity and uncertainty within organizations, is it impossible for leaders to know and prescribe to others what to do. Instead, organizational members often help leaders to find directions out of confusion and uncertainty. As such, the new reality to replace Myth #4 is: “leaders encourage processes that enable emergent order” (Lichtenstein & Plowman, 2009, p. 143). An example would be for a leader to focus on clarifying processes rather than clarifying outcomes, and allow the organizational members to determine the relevant outcomes.

Lead Like Jazz (Part 2), Scott Olson

(Part 1 here: Lead Like Jazz, Scott Olson)

From Leadership Journal: Lead Like Jazz (Part 2): How to help your team find their groove. Here are some sound bites (pun intended):

I often see other leaders in my organization, regardless of whether or not they've ever picked up an instrument, as musicians that I may get an opportunity to play with. While most people lean more toward one leadership style than another, the ability to move between styles and remain fluid can be a tremendous asset to any team…

In jazz, the "groove" created in the moment determines the outcome (sound, emotion, feeling). In classical style, the composer and conductor have predetermined the outcome. When a leader and team find that "leadership groove," where they mesh creatively and challenge the sheet music, they can move into an incredible place of synergistic collaboration…

To find the leadership groove, you gotta know what song you're trying to play, you gotta know when it's your time to play…

Leaders need vision. We may not always know how we are going to get there, but we do need to know where "there" is. Bill Hybels once said, "A leader's job is to move people from here to there." Andy Stanley described "there" as a "clear mental picture of what could be, fueled by the conviction that it should be." Stephen Covey described "there" as "beginning with the end in mind." While jazz musicians are able to improvise and make things up on the spot, great band leaders are visionary and strategic, always knowing what song they are playing and what song they're going to call next…

Can you see the tremendous potential that exists when jazz leadership smacks up against the daily grind of your leadership journey? Leading like jazz opens new doors for leaders. There are certain moments in life for which there is no script. Our formal training and preparation can take us far, but sometimes not far enough. Sometimes we just need that extra "something." The ability to apply jazz leadership from time to time can be an incredible addition to your and the people you work with. You can't play the right notes (or make the right strategic moves) unless you're listening to what's going on around you. Healthy teams and dynamic organizations need people who can play classical and jazz…

Read the whole thing.

Problem-Solving, Opinionated Americans

From Leadership Journal, The African Planter: Nairobi Chapel pastor on mission trips, and working well across cultures. An interview with Oscar Muriu (quoted in Leading Across Cultures: Effective Ministry and Mission in the Global Church pgs 110-111):

Americans have two great things going for them culturally. One is that Americans are problem-solvers. Every time I come to the U.S., I like to spend a couple hours in a Wal-Mart. I find solutions to problems that I never thought of!

The rest of the world, even Europe, isn't so intent on solving inconveniences. We tend to live with our problems… Americans don't easily live with a problem—they want to solve the problem and move on…

The second great thing for Americans is that your educational system teaches people to think and to express themselves. So a child who talks and asserts himself in conversation is actually awarded higher marks than the one who sits quietly.

Those two things that are such great gifts in the home context become a curse when you go into missions. Americans come to Africa, and they want to solve Africa. But you can't solve Africa. It's much too complex for that. And that really frustrates Americans.

And the assertiveness you are taught in school becomes a curse on the field. I often say to American missionaries, "When the American speaks, the conversation is over."  The American is usually the most powerful voice at the table. And when the most powerful voice gives its opinion, the conversation is over.

I tell Americans: "We're going into this meeting. Don't say anything! Sit there and hold your tongue." When you sit around a table, the people speaking always glance at the person they believe is the most powerful figure at the table. They will do that with you when you're the only American. And at some point, they will ask you: "What do you think?"

Don't say anything. If you say anything, reflect back with something like "I have heard such wisdom at this table. I am very impressed." And leave it at that. Affirm them for the contribution they have made. Don't give your own opinion.

Americans find that almost impossible. They do not know how to hold their tongue. They sit there squirming, because they're conditioned to express their opinions. It's a strength at home, but it becomes a curse on the field.

In a sense western missions has been marked by that. But isn't it strange that Jesus not only entered society incarnate at the weakest point, as a defenseless child who needed the care of his host community, but he also told his disciples: "Do not go with money; do not go with a second pair of shoes; go in a stance of vulnerability; be dependent on the communities you visit"? Isn't it interesting that for 30 years he doesn't speak out; doesn't reveal himself; he remains quiet, and only after 30 years of listening and learning the culture does he begin to speak…

Lead Like Jazz, Scott Olson

From Leadership Journal, November 2012, Lead Like Jazz by Scott Olson:

Jazz. I absolutely love it. I know some don't. Others say it's an "acquired taste," but for me there's nothing like it…

It's not just about the music, either. The older I get, the more I'm seeing the impact that jazz has played on my leadership style. Sounds strange, I know. But the connection between leadership and music makes sense, especially when you begin to understand the difference between classical and jazz. Both genres correlate to distinctive leadership styles…

There are times when we as leaders need to take a classical approach. Highly detailed projects require careful attention to detail. We need to play every note on the page. I don't want my dentist playing "jazz" in my mouth during a root canal. I want accuracy. I want rules followed. I want exact science applied. Many leaders are process people and have personalities that tend to make them focus on details, accuracy, and good process. But there are certain situations that call for a different approach. There are times when we encounter obstacles and ambiguity, times where a little "jazz" is just what it takes to lead on another level…

Leading with jazz is not always the best answer, but neither is playing only classical. The key is to know when to switch styles in order to match the leadership situation…

Read the whole thing (1 page).

Secular Leadership Book Affecting a Disciple-Making Movement?

In the forward to Miraculous Movements, author Jerry Trousdale tells the story of CityTeam International which was able to start church planting movements among Muslims in Africa.  Part of the story includes the influence of a book on leadership in their process of learning about starting movements.  Here is the quote:

In 2002, CityTeam International was a seemingly successful “rescue mission” touching the lives of more than five hundred thousand disadvantaged urban dwellers every year. Yet while CityTeam was experiencing God’s blessing in helping-ministries and evangelism, the organization was a failure in discipling its converts to see real transformation in communities. But that was about to change. That year, CityTeam’s CEO Patrick Robertson read Good to Great by Jim Collins, and, inspired by what he felt was a call to recommit CityTeam’s mission to the cause of discipleship, he invited the staff and board of trustees of the organization to begin a journey into a highly intentional focus on obeying Jesus’ last words: “Go therefore and make disciples.”…

Jerry’s story continues with coming into contact with Dave Watson, etc.  But I was struck by the influence that Good to Great had on the process.  I’ve also seen Good to Great recommended at What’s Best Next and been encouraged to read this book from this post: Why Christians Should Read in the Mainstream.

In any case, have you read Good to Great?  What did you think?

Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani is Released!

Just wanted to share the great news with those of you who haven't heard about the release of Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani from prison this week.  Thank God for this important step toward the recognition of religious freedom.  Let us continue to pray for those who are still held for their faith in Iran and throughout the world.  And let us pray for the peace of God and the mind of Christ to prevail in Iran during these trying days.





This dear brother had numerous chances to recant his faith to achieve his freedom, but he refused, choosing to die for Christ and never see his wife and children again in this world rather than to deny his Savior.  And now, after repeated death sentences and more than three years behind bars on charges of apostasy, he has been released for time served for the lesser crime of "evangelizing Muslims."  What a testimony!

Related Post: Praying for Iranian Christians