I am now a proud member of the Washington DC Deaf Branch. Never mind the fact that I don't really know how to sign. Upon joining the branch, I was somewhat concerned about what calling I might receive. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy having responsibilities, but I somewhat concerned that I would once again being tapped as a clerk of sorts. It seems that once you get into the administrative callings, it is sometimes difficult to escape, and in Romania I was the "everything clerk." So, a few weeks ago when the Branch President called me into his office for an interview, I was extremely happy when I learned that I was offered a calling as the Branch Mission Leader.
Perhaps you might not leap for joy at this calling, but I am quite excited about it. There are two main reasons for this: 1) Even though it has been more than five years since I was a full-time missionary for the Church, I still enjoy the idea of missionary work and think about it regularly, and 2) I hold a lot of strong opinions about missionary work, and look forward to making those opinions heard. Frankly, I feel that many go about doing missionary work with a, shall we say, “less-than-ideal” approach.
In honor of my new calling and in an attempt to bounce ideas off all of you, I would like to dedicate the next several posts to different aspects of missionary work. Please feel free to make your opinions and feelings known, both Mormons and non-Mormons alike.
For today, I want to assess the idea of what a missionary actually is.
Depending on your background and experience, you might have a very different view of a missionary than I do. For some, a missionary is a Jehovah's Witnesses knocking at your doors or leaving pamphlets. For others, missionaries are the Jesuits from centuries ago who went and spent the rest of their lives in foreign communities. Others think more along the lines of the conquistadors, the crusaders, or others who used physical force to compel others to religious conversion. Others might think of the evangelical youth or retirees of today who go on short “mission trips” to parts of the world, handing out Bibles and the like. And of course, many of you think of the young men and women with name tags who represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Even with this short but incomplete (and admittedly Christian-centric, sorry to my non-Christian friends) list, it is visible how one type of missionary work differs significantly from the others. Moreover, depending on your view of missionaries or missionary work, even the word “missionary” might carry with it a very positive or negative connotation.
It seems that the occasion arises often where my past experience as a missionary has led to interesting discussions with my friends and colleagues, the vast majority of whom are not Mormons, about what it means to be a missionary. As a development worker, I draw close parallels between what we do around the world in terms of development and humanitarian work. We go to a foreign community, offer up new ideas and concepts, and hope that those new ideas and concepts take root and grow.
In essence, a missionary does (or should do) the same thing. They go among those who are different than they are, offer up new ideas and ways of living life, and hope that those new ideas and habits take root and expand. This is the process often called “religious conversion.” The only real difference is that God is directly factored into the equation.
So why then do people generally have a positive view of humanitarian work, yet often carry a negative view of missionary work? While there are many different possible explanations, I feel there is one reason which may be more significant than others: Too many missionaries have gone about their work in the entirely wrong way.
As I have reflected on how to classify the “wrong way” and the “right way” to do missionary work, the most useful element I have identified can be expressed as a question: “For whom are you working?” Are missionaries working for their own spiritual well-being, or for that of others?
When a missionary is concerned primarily with their own well-being, they get lazy. They start resorting to questionable techniques, giving sales-pitches, using fear tactics, etc. In short, they try to make people fear that if they don't accept their message, they will be in danger of some unseen peril in the life to come. They essentially take any option out of the conversion process.
To me, it seems that missionary work is only useful if it is genuine and truly focused on the well-being of others. This means it must be completely open-ended, and that those who convert must choose to do so, without being unnecessarily compelled by a missionary. Any more thoughts on how this can possibly be measured? Any other thoughts on the right and wrong ways to be a missionary?
6 comments:
Going about missionary work the wrong way is one of my greatest pet peeves about the church.
Rather than go into where this problem comes from (for one, the fact that the Lord calls all young men to be missionaries whether they grasp the concept or not), I'll just share an example from my own mission.
As part of our effort to meet more deaf, we got special permission to go to the next mission over and attend Deaf Expo. We were in the California, Los Angeles Mission (CLAM) and Deaf Expo was in the California, Anaheim Mission (CAM). This was even before they split off the California, Long Beach Mission (CLBM).
I was palling around with one of the missionaries from the Anaheim mission, who actually happened to be Aussie (Elder Mitchell), and he pointed out some less active members, so we went over to say 'hi.'
Immediately, the guy, started with "Oh, sorry I haven't been to church, can't go, really, because I've been so busy." (Ugh, how many times did I see that on my mission) And I stopped him right there and said, "Hey, I've only just met you, just wanted to say hi, Elder Mitchell here is a mutual friend so he just brought me over to say hi. What's your name?" It really didn't compute that a missionary could have a normal conversation, and I went away disappointed.
It was symptomatic of all the missionaries who had gone before me who had no interest in the person they were speaking to, no interest in where they were coming from, the problems in their lives, or anything about them, only the single minded purpose of getting someone to church and getting them baptised and the harassing them ever after that about why they aren't going to church any more.
I knew a great lady who hesitated turning conversations toward the gospel for fear of looking like a "super-Christian."
I have the same concern. Some Christians go over the top with fellowship in a thinly-veiled attempt to convert. With gospel-sharing always at the forefront of my mind, I have to temper it with finding genuine interest in my colleagues regardless of whether they accept my invitations.
I'm still a swinging pendulum. Haven't found the perfect attitude. I look forward to your future posts, Nils.
Toby-
Great example. Whether as a missionary in Russia, in Romania with the Peace Corps, various other countries, or here at home in the USA, I have always noticed that those missionaries who are most successful are always those who have genuine relationships with those they teach, and who can still communicate as a "normal person."
Thaddeus-
I think sometimes we think the only way to bring up the gospel is through overt means of asking probing questions, putting people on the spot, etc. Chances are, if somebody feels awkward as they are trying to share the gospel with somebody else, the other person feels ten times more awkward.
Fortunately, I believe that we can be much more effective in our sharing of the gospel if we focus on it being a natural process of communication for us. We'll talk about this plenty more over the next few weeks.
People have a negative view of missionaries because they feel condescended to. Most people do not enjoy hints that there views are wrong, and cheery strangers just make US resentful. Religion should be a private matter, except in places like churches or religous conventions. Everybody is convinced that they are right and everbody else is wrong, bt nobody wants to be told, however politely, that they are wrong. Tell me it's not just a little rude to go to people's homes and try to get them to agree with something like the truth about creation.
Taliesin-
I agree that it is never pleasant to have somebody come in an even suggest that you are wrong. I've had many cases where members of other religions told me straight out (even before saying hello, asking my name, or anything like that) that I belonged to the church of the devil, was going to hell, and all sorts of good icebreakers that did anything but make me willing to hear what they had to say.
Missionary work, in my opinion, is only truly effective when it is wanted. For the listener, it must be based on a desire for a learning experience at the least, or a search for the truth to life at most.
For missionaries, the goal must be to share, not to sell or condemn. In 1998, Mormon President Gordon B. Hinckley said: "...develop all the good you can. We have no animosity toward any other church. We do not oppose other churches. We never speak negatively of other churches. We say to people: you bring all the good that you have, and let us see if we can add to it."
For some missionaries, they seem to have a hard time finding a balance between sharing opening to those who want, and trying to convince those who are not interested in hearing what they have to say.
You may not have any animosity against other churches, but I'd bet other churches can't stand your's... That's like saying two competing publishers don't hope for more of the other's business.
Post a Comment