Do Mission Agencies want to be First?

We were talking yesterday of the sometimes over inflated self-image of mission societies. Reflecting on this, Mark 10:44 came to mind. If anyone wants to be first then they must be slave (δοῦλος·) of all. If mission agencies wish to remain important to the world mission enterprise, service is the way.

So how does a mission agency serve the world church? It is all very well for a theologian to pontificate from the luxury of his or her study but, if mission agencies can only prove their validity by serviing the world church rather than simply facilitate mission from the West to the rest, or even from one continent to another, how is this done in practice?

The worldwide church is a fact that Christians have been slow to recognise. The  myth that the Western church is at the centre of what God is doing in the world is frustratingly persistent. We are, in a real sense a victim of the success of world mission. Not our success but God's.

The Modern Missionary Movement was brought to birth by the so-called Father of Modern Mission, William Carey (BTW who was the mother?). By 1910 the world mission movement saw itself as being within reach of the goal, "the evangelisation of the world in our generation". Archbishop William Temple said in the early twentieth century that the "great new fact of our time" is that there was a church in every nation. Henry Venn, the former director of CMS pointed out that the "goal" of 19th Century missions was the "euthanasia of mission structures".

So returning to the question, how do mission agencies serve that worldwide church. If we assume that the role of the local church in the world to reach out to that world, then the agency must be serving those local churches in their mission. What do those agencies bring to the local church? I guess it could be any number of things, mobilisation, resources (personel and practical), experience, expertise or encouragement.

For agencies who work with a regional emphasis this may mean transferring the main office, or at least the office that directs strategy to the place where they work. This would give the executives leading these agencies far more knowledge, information and feel for the church that the agenciy is aiming to serve. Great examples are OMF, SIM and WEC.

What do we think?