Moving Beyond
“Supply-Side” Missions
by Ken Baker
It is our privilege four times a year at SIM USA to welcome a new group
of soon-to-be SIM missionaries as they gather for a two-week SIMGo orientation.
As they circulate around the office we eagerly introduce ourselves and
invariably ask two standard questions: Where are you going? & What are you going to do? Their varied answers demonstrate the breadth
of ministry opportunities in the SIM world, but these questions also highlight
what appears so significant to us about mission, going and doing. For budding missionaries these are huge
issues which, once settled, focus and inspire toward preparation and
execution.
We don’t seem to grasp, however, the level of presumption
which accompanies such decisions. With
the going and doing settled, it seems the die is already cast well before one
ever enters the eventual context of ministry.
Such confidence rests on the assumption that the SIM placement system has
thoroughly affirmed the essential need to which the corresponding candidate is
the hoped-for answer. This is what I
call “supply-side missions,” which operates on a continuum of identifying needs
and providing solutions.
For those of us
who are accustomed to perceiving mission from a position of power and capacity,
we seem to receive the Great Commission and the Great Commandment as a blank
check mandate on which we can write any mission activity which seems
appropriate. Supply-side missions
conceptualizes global engagement in terms of unilateral agenda and contribution,
viewing the world through the lens of what-it-lacks and what-we-have-to-offer—what we have, what we know, what we can do, what we can say, etc. Our
capability often causes us to presume we (and what we have) are the
supply to meet this need, reach these people, develop this ministry, etc.
When we shape
mission in terms of what we have to dispense to the nations, agenda and
strategy control the conversation and determine what we bring to the ministry context. This perspective flows from a
self-perception of the complete (we are ‘saved’, knowledgeable, capable, etc.
and no longer needy) to the incomplete (the lost and needy in ‘third world’,
deprived places).
This lack/need
orientation flows from a tendency to categorize the world, its peoples and
their conditions, and view them through a classification/problem-solving grid,
leading us to formulate a strategic agenda in answer to the question: “What (and who) does it take for us to meet
this need?” There are four
assumptions which populate this question…that we have accurately perceived and
understood the need…that we can measure it…that we are the ones to meet it…and that we can actually satisfy the
need through our activities. I believe
this is merely a management question masquerading as a missional question.
Ultimately, the
main issue is not the nature of our mission engagement (i.e. word or deed) as
much as it is who we perceive ourselves
to be in relation to Others in the global community…whether those of the
Majority World church or the billions of image bearers of God who do not (yet)
follow their Creator, Savior and King.
When the Law expert in Luke 10 asked Jesus,
“And who is my neighbor?” He meant it in the sense of “how am I to view others
in relation to me?” His response
demonstrates that he completely misunderstood the import of divine love,
manifested in Christ Jesus, who exemplified “servant of all” (Mk 9:35). Instead, a biblical perspective generates “who
am I in relation to others?” and, personified by the Samaritan, considers
others [and their context] as significant, contributory and incumbent upon me. This is a chronically missing dimension in
mission engagement because we are so consumed with our presumed, unilateral
mandate and the vast capacity we have to offer.
At its core,
mission is about the in-breaking of God’s kingdom, which is already…and not
yet. He is establishing his authority
and restoring all things as he intended them to be. Thus, I propose that, as children of the
King, a better missional question is: “How
does God intend that his kingdom flourish in this place and time?” Do you see how this completely rearranges what
matters most? The focus is upon what God
is doing and the impact of his reign.
What is the story he is writing in this (or that) place? What is the plot? Who are the actors? What is already happening? This line of
questioning does not presume to insert ourselves and our solutions into the context,
but rather seeks to listen (through the guidance of God’s Spirit) to the
narrative the context is living and places us in our Lord’s agenda. [Actually, this question applies for anyone
in any context…neighborhood, school, workplace, field, etc.]
As a SIM family
we are a multicultural community living in a diverse, global context. This reality means, no requires, that we
display massive doses of mutual consideration in relationship with our diverse
colleagues and the contexts in which we minister. Such respect and consideration will only flow
when we identify latent assumptions about our (and others’) identity and
capacity. May our Lord, by prayer, give
us new eyes to see what we have not known.
