Models of Mission

Models of Mission

Consider these two models of mission. These are actual descriptions of mission work which Presbyterians are doing today in Honduras. Comparing these two models helps us articulate some foundational questions for the church today.

Model A:
A group of six Presbyterian congregations have formed a Foundation for the purpose of building and sustaining a medical clinic in rural Honduras. The leaders of this effort have begun a fundraising campaign to raise $500,000. Thus far they have recruited a Honduran medical doctor who is now employed by their Foundation. The Foundation has also purchased a piece of property in rural Honduras on which they intend to build their medical clinic. When the building is finished and with the medical doctor and medical staff on site, comprehensive medical care will be provided for a large, rural area. This medical mission does not have a relationship with any Honduran churches.

Model B:
A group of about thirty Presbyterian congregations, in three different presbyteries, have formed a partnership with the Presbytery of Honduras. An important purpose behind this mission is to encourage the twenty congregations in the Presbytery of Honduras to function together as a presbytery. In this mission the American Presbyterians only respond to needs in Honduras which are articulated and prioritized by the Presbytery of Honduras. The Presbytery of Honduras has proposed several different avenues of ministry which our American churches can support. These include support for medical clinics which are provided in each of their congregations with a Honduran medical doctor who is employed by the Presbytery of Honduras. This partnership also includes construction projects which are defined and proposed by the Presbytery of Honduras. The construction of church buildings and Sunday school buildings within the Presbytery of Honduras are always carried out with both Americans and Hondurans working together. The Honduran and American Presbyterians are also exploring plans to build a cooperative relationship with Habitat for Humanity Honduras, provide youth conferences for American and Honduran youth together and provide a scholarship program for Presbyterian high school students in Honduras.

In this new era of Christianity in America, the difference between these two models of mission is important. Which model for mission is appropriate for times like these? Of these two models, I am very involved with Model B. I am working to create a partnership between our Presbytery and the Presbytery of Honduras. My hope is to create a mutual relationship between our presbyteries which is beneficial to both. Most of all I hope to create close, personal relationships between American church leaders and Honduran church leaders so that we are both equipped for ministry. Eventually, I hope this partnership will lead to sister-to-sister church relationships within our presbyteries. While I was in Honduras recently, the leaders of the Foundation I described as Model A were also staying in the hotel with us. Thus I learned about their important ministry during informal conversation during our stay at the hotel.

In my mind the difference between these two models of mission is striking. Model A may be described as doing mission by helping others. Model B may be described as doing mission by building relationships. It is vital for us who are called to build mission-shaped and mission-driven churches to ground our work in serious theological reflection. Listed here are some of the questions I have pondered as I respond to the call of Christ to do mission:

Should we be engaged in any mission work which is not boldly and directly evangelical? Are efforts to help people and improve society appropriate expressions of mission if they do not intentionally include the proclamation of Jesus Christ?

Should we be creating expressions of mission service which will always depend on American resources – money and people – for continuation? What are the long term consequences of creating mission projects that are completely dependent on American money?

Should we be engaged in any mission work that is not intentionally connected with local churches in the host country as partners and colleagues?

How do we solve the dilemma of mission as vacation? Many of the American Presbyterians who are actively involved in mission work today do so as expressions of their personal vacation time. Of course, this is a noble contribution of time and money. But what is the difference between tourism and mission work? Should we encourage or discourage mission trips as tourism?