Section

It is a great calling and privilege to be a missionary. It is my joy to have rubbed shoulders with hundreds of foreign missionaries over the past two decades. By and large, they impress me very positively.

There is a need for a different understanding of “missionary” than what many people have.

As the church enters the last quarter of this century, there is a new sense of reality and urgency about the missionary task.

I may be able to speak fluently the language of my chosen field and even understand its culture, but if I have no love, the impact of my speech is no more for Christ than that of a businessman who comes to exploit the people.

A year ago we published an article on the necessity of evaluating the work of missionaries after they get to the field. Some of our readers applauded and some booed. It remains difficult for some to put a “spiritual” activity under the microscope of objective scrutiny.

With this religious heritage, and two foreign occupations in this century, the following generalizations are quite understandable.

More than fifty years ago, when Harry and Susan Strachan founded the Latin America Mission, the continent was wracked by political turbulence.

Is it possible to predict missionary drop-outs and save ourselves considerable loss?

Although the “church growth” school of thought has made substantial inroads into missionary thinking, there is a continuing reluctance on the part of many evangelicals to accept “church growth” concepts.

To discuss creativity on the mission field we must first define creativity.