EMQ » July–September 2021 » Volume 57 Issue 3
By Jenn Williamson
As the Baby Boomer generation retires from the mission field, American mission agencies are facing a crisis. According to the 2019 Field Attrition Study published by Missio Nexus, more missionaries are leaving the field than are arriving, putting the sustainability of sending agencies at risk. The Missio Nexus study plainly states: “The obvious reality is that the mobilization of new missionaries must outpace the rate of attrition in order for our agencies to endure.”[1]
In order for our agencies to endure. Based on the assumption that mission agencies must endure, mobilization has become the default response to missionary attrition. But is it the right response? And is mobilization rightly motivated? What if agencies didn’t mobilize? In this article, I’d like to shed light on current research and propose some new ways of addressing attrition and mobilization.
The Call to Missions
The role of the mission agency, historically, has been to support the work of those called by God to cross-cultural ministries. Most organizations developed stringent deputization processes, working in conjunction with sending churches, to discern if the candidate did, indeed have a call of God to missions. Mission agencies were highly selective because they believed that effectiveness and sustainability on the field were tied to calling. Missionaries face unique challenges: leaving the comforts of home, moving abroad, learning a new language, adapting to a new culture, loving a foreign people group, and serving in humility. In addition, it often takes years of hard work to see results. Missionaries need perseverance rooted in a deep conviction that one has been called to this work, as well as confidence in the Lord who did the calling.
Perhaps the number of North Americans called to international missions has been decreasing because the seeds planted through the great missionary movement of the early twentieth century are now bearing much fruit. While fewer North American Christians are flocking to the field, countries that were once considered mission fields – like Brazil and South Korea – have become missionary sending centers. Let’s praise God for the fruitfulness coming from the faithfulness of our predecessors! Furthermore, as the gospel continues to take root in new places, and local partners begin to lead the charge of making disciples and planting churches, foreign missionaries work themselves out of a job and fewer outsiders are needed to sustain the work.
Perhaps the decline of North American missionaries is not such a bad thing for the kingdom. Could it be that God is not calling as many North Americans to missions in this season? If that’s the case, then what is the point of mobilization?
What’s the Real Goal of Mobilization?
Those who would seek to make a biblical case for mobilization point to the Great Commission, where Jesus commands his disciples to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19, NET). There’s also the charge that Jesus gave his disciples in Samaria, to “ask the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest-ready fields” (Matthew 9:38, NET). However, in neither of these texts does Christ tell his disciples to recruit others to become cross-cultural missionaries. The right and holy desire to sow the seeds of the gospel broadly doesn’t justify mission mobilization. While all Christians are commanded to make disciples, not all are called to global mission work. Successful cross-cultural missionaries are uniquely gifted, properly trained, and distinctively skilled. Even the apostle Paul carefully selected those who accompanied him on his missionary voyages.
As mentioned in the introduction, it seems that the motivation behind mobilization efforts is not the salvation of souls, but rather the salvation of the mission agencies themselves. Many North American mission agencies are funded through donations which come in the form of financial gifts for individual missionaries or missionary families. The missionaries raise the support, and the mission agency retains a certain percentage to cover overhead and administrative expenses. This amount varies between agencies but is generally around ten percent. Each agency thus, has a “break even” point – the number of donor-supported missionaries needed to cover the cost of running the organization. As the number of donor-supported missionaries has been on the decline over the past decades, agencies have begun to focus on mobilization to remain fiscally solvent.
Agencies must genuinely ask themselves the question, “Why are we mobilizing missionaries?” Is the point of mobilization the solvency of the organization? And if that is the case, it might be time to rethink mobilization. Encouraging people who may not be called of God to engage in missions presents many risks and may prove detrimental to the work of God in the world.
After establishing the motivation behind mobilization, mission agencies need to honestly examine the methods that are being used to mobilize.
How Are Agencies Mobilizing Missionaries?
Some mission agencies offer short-term mission trips to mobilize missionaries, contending that those who go on short-term mission trips are more likely to become long-term missionaries. This idea comes from misinterpreting statistics such as those that say, “eighty-four percent of new long-term missionaries indicated they had previously served on a two-week mission trip prior to signing up for long-term mission service.”[2] It is important to note that correlation does not equal causation.
In a 2019 Gospel Coalition article entitled, “I’d Probably Still Cancel Your Short-Term Mission Trip,” author Darren Carlson aptly observes, “Statistics show that while short-term missions have exploded, the number of full-time missionaries has remained the same or even decreased.”[3] Carlson draws on numerous mission researchers to conclude that short-term mission trips “don’t cause more people to commit to long-term missions.”[4] He also cites research that shows that those who go on short-term mission trips are no more likely to financially support a long-term missionary than those who have never been on a short-term trip. Nevertheless, rather than relying on solid research, many mission agencies continue to use anecdotal evidence to justify short-term mission opportunities as means of mobilization.
The amount of money spent on short-term trips should also be weighed against these statistics. Most agencies acknowledge that short-term trips benefit those who take the trips more than they benefit the country or people group to which the short-termers travel. Short-term trips can expand the vision of North Americans, can give them a new and deep experience of God, and can help them love and appreciate a different culture and people group. These are good things! However, it is dishonest to imply that donations given to support short-term trips will typically result in lasting, gospel-centered, kingdom growth in the receiving countries. As many North American churches increase their short-term mission budgets, they decrease their giving to long-term missionaries. Mission agencies must think carefully about the partnerships and giving strategies they want to develop with local churches, and the outcomes that these strategies produce.
Another way agencies try to mobilize new missionaries is to send agency representatives to Christian colleges, mission fairs, and mission conferences. This approach is certainly less expensive than short-term trips, but it may not be more effective at mobilization. According to a document entitled “Mission Motives: Why North Americans Serve and Stay Cross Culturally,” Michael Van Huis of Missio Nexus summarizes the findings of Dr. Benjamin Teitelbaum’s research into what motivates North Americans to engage in cross-cultural mission work. In short, he concludes, “God calls and His people respond.”[5] God calls. Not mission mobilizers. Furthermore, when Teitelbaum asked missionaries about how they were moved to missionary service, only six percent of missionaries stated that they were on the field because of an invitation. Eighty-eight percent of missionaries were serving in response to a call of God on their lives – a call to a role, a place, or to obedience.[6]
When considering mobilization efforts, agencies would be wise to honestly evaluate their own mobilization projects to see if their methods are producing the desired results. Finally, consider the affect that mobilization is having on the work of God in world.
Does Mobilization of More Missionaries Produce Greater Results for the Kingdom of God?
The underlying assumption is that the more missionaries we send, the more people will be reached by the gospel. But is this true? Who can forget the story of Gideon (Numbers 7)? Gideon, who was facing a stronger, more equipped army, is not told to go out and recruit more soldiers. To the contrary, God tells Gideon to reduce his numbers. God doesn’t need big armies to win big victories. God chooses how many are to participate in the campaign and can accomplish great things with a few faithful, obedient people. Nevertheless, as noted above, God is mobilizing missionaries from new sending centers. Our brothers and sisters from other countries have taken the baton and are going to the field. The decrease in North American missionaries does not necessarily mean that fewer missionaries are going overall.
Furthermore, when mission agencies mobilize those who are not called of God, attrition is more likely. Current research indicates that fifty percent of missionaries leave the field after one term.[7] [8] “Given the amount of time, money, and effort that are required to raise support, transition to the field, learn a new language and culture, and prepare for cross-cultural ministry, attrition after one term represents a significant loss of both financial and human resources, to say nothing of the emotional pain and professional turmoil experienced by the missionary.”[9] To make matters worse, most cross-cultural missionaries don’t start making a significant contribution to ministry until the end of their first term.[10] In other words, half of those going to a mission field leave before they become effective.
In the early twentieth century, during the great student movement, young people were leaving for the mission field in droves. Mission agencies coalesced around those who felt the call to missions in order to facilitate organizational, logistical, and financial support. The organization existed to serve those called to missions, not to call people to missions. There were conferences and gatherings and inspiring messages and biblical teachings – we need these things! But they must emphasize (rather than de-emphasize) the importance of call.
Finally, mobilization of willing, but ill-equipped workers creates challenges for long-term mission efforts. Those who lack the needed gifts and abilities, such as competent language skills and cultural intelligence, can hinder the work of those who are called for the long haul. Long-term missionaries spend years building trust and friendship with national partners. That trust is fragile, and easily damaged by careless short-termers who haven’t had to invest the time and commitment into building it. Unfortunately, the credibility of all foreign workers can be compromised by the incompetence of a few.
Let’s be honest – cross-cultural mission work is hard! It demands the appointment of the obedient, the faithful, and the called, not the excited, the interested, and the curious. Thrill seekers and do-gooders should be weeded out, not encouraged. Mission work should not be marketed as a place to find oneself or an opportunity to do good work while figuring out one’s true calling. Lowering the bar to allow anyone and everyone to give missions a try trivializes the work of those who go in obedience to a call of God.
What Can Mission Agencies Do?
The world is not what it was a century ago. Global connectivity, changing funding priorities, generational differences, and challenges like those related to COVID-19 mean that mission agencies do need to adapt their strategies. How could rethinking mobilization enable missionary sending agencies meet the challenges of the twenty-first century?
Re-Emphasize Prayer!
Jesus invited his disciples to pray for the Lord to send out workers. Yes! Let’s pray. And trust the Lord of the harvest to call those whom he has chosen to live and serve cross-culturally. Pray for clarity about the role of the mission agency. Pray that God would increase our faith that he calls those he wants, and that those he does call are sufficient for the work. Pray through the discernment process, seeking to send to the field all those, but only those, whose call has been validated and confirmed by their sending church. Pray for creativity and adaptability and even a new vision for how the mission agency should make known the needs and opportunities for cross-cultural workers.
Re-Focus on Retention
Retaining a seasoned and effective missionary is more cost-effective than recruiting a new short-term missionary. Figure out if missionaries are leaving the field for preventable reasons and invest in reducing unnecessary attrition. Evaluate the services that your agency offers that you believe are contributing to sustainability. Take stock of pre-field training, language and culture coaching, member care, and ongoing educational opportunities to discover which ones are helping missionaries stay on the field and which ones could be improved. Bring in experts and researchers to find out how to sustain funding for your long-term workers who have proven track records. Advocate for them with their sending churches and supporters. Listen to those who have persevered and seen positive outcomes – learn from their experience. Celebrate faithfulness and fruitfulness.
Re-Frame Short-Term Trips
Rather than sponsoring short-term mission trips in which North Americans go to serve in another country, develop healthy ministry exchanges whereby church-based North American teams visit, observe, and learn from healthy ministries in other countries. Facilitate conversations around resources that each ministry could share with the other, talk about the needs of both the visiting and the receiving ministries, and most importantly, foster friendship and unity among brothers and sisters in Christ. Go with humility and an eagerness to understand and see where God is at work in another culture. In this way, there can be positive outcomes for God’s global kingdom.[11]
Re-Imagine Internationalization
Many agencies are moving towards internationalization, seeking to facilitate the call of missionaries from newer and non-traditional sending centers. Again, it is important to scrutinize the motivation for internationalization. In countries with existing churches and communities of faith, agencies could serve to support indigenous efforts rather than establish their own. Agencies could use their networks to foster collaboration and empower structuration of local sending centers, without having to own a piece of the pie. This might foster new ways of thinking and engaging in cross-cultural mission, rather than importing an old and foreign way. It could inspire the local body of believers to participate in the mission of God with greater fervor. How might North American agencies serve new sending countries without coming in and doing the work themselves?
Re-Consider Local Opportunities
A hundred years ago, missionaries packed their belongings in coffins, not planning to return to their sending countries until they died. Today, most people move between careers and roles throughout their lifetime. While cross-cultural work overseas requires longer term commitments, and still has a place in the world, there are great needs for intercultural ministry and reconciliation right in your own backyard. Such opportunities might be more accessible for those who are not called to long-term missions but sense a call to engage in the issues of the day. Perhaps traditional sending agencies are poised to expand their engagement in these types of domestic ministries, offering their cultural expertise in the service of the local North American church. Could mission agencies facilitate the ministries of those called to racial reconciliation and/or the unity of all believers?
Re-Think Mobilization
Being on mission with God is the call of every believer; however, serving God in a cross-cultural ministry is a specific call, which means that God is the real missionary mobilizer. The mission agency must stay focused on its role to serve and support those who are called to go and not become an end unto itself. I urge missionary sending organizations to re-think their mobilization efforts. Consider the investment and evaluate whether mobilization is the best use of kingdom resources. Are actual (rather than anecdotal) results being measured and weighed against real costs? Remember the work to which you, too, have been called, and stay faithful to it.
Jenn Williamson is a missionary with Greater Europe Mission involved in church planting and mentoring emerging leaders in France. She is the founder and president of Elan (elanmission.org), an organization committed to helping foreign missionaries successfully transition to the field by connecting them with a French mentor. She has a Masters in Ministry Leadership and a DMin in Leadership and Global Perspectives.
EMQ, Volume 57, Issue 3. Copyright © 2021 by Missio Nexus. All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from Missio Nexus. Email: EMQ@MissioNexus.org.
[1] Michael R. VanHuis, “Field Attrition Study Report,” Missio Nexus, July 2019, accessed August 15, 2019, https://adobeindd.com/view/publications/624b1574-7f5f-4fd0-b896-35739b18f6ed/elsv/publication-web-resources/pdf/Attrition_Study_2019_Final.pdf.
[2] “Do Short-Term Mission Trips Produce Long-Term Missionaries?” The Aquila Report, May 8, 2016, https://www.theaquilareport.com/do-short-term-mission-trips-produce-long-term-missionaries/.
[3] Darren Carlson, “I’d Probably Still Cancel Your Short-Term Mission Trip,” The Gospel Coalition, accessed February 8, 2021, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/still-cancel-short-term-mission-trip/.
[4] Carlson, “I’d Probably Still Cancel.”
[5] Michael VanHuis, “Mission Motives Full Report,” Missio Nexus, accessed November 9, 2017, https://missionexus.org/mission-motives-full-report/, 2.
[6] VanHuis, “Mission Motives,” 10.
[7] K. P. Yohannan, Come, Let’s Reach the World: Partnership in Church Planting Among the Most Unreached (Carrollton, TX: GFA Books, 2004), 45.
[8] For most North American sending agencies, a term is four to five years in country of service, followed by a year of furlough in the country of origin.
[9] Jennifer Williamson, A Missiology of WITH: The Catalyst for Missionary Effectiveness in the 21ST Century (George Fox Digital Commons, 2019), 2.
[10] Unpublished surveys of missionaries and sending agencies (Spring 2016), personal archives.
[11] Our small local church hosted a ministry exchange with our home church from the United States. The results were impactful and has resulted in long-term support by our sending church for our local French pastor.
