God's bigger mission requires showing up differently when crossing cultures

For most of us involved in ministry to the world beyond our own borders, the phrase “the West to the rest” now makes us uncomfortable. I celebrate that progress and the shift towards recognizing the role of so-called "nationals" or indigenous leaders. But could it be that with all good intentions we have not gone far enough? 

Previous generations crossed oceans, learned languages, and lived in a land not their own in order to introduce others to Jesus. Many sacrificed enormously to do it. The Majority World (non-Western) leaders I meet are often the first to express gratitude for them. But they are also telling me something else.

I believed in indigenous leadership now.

Over the last few years, my colleague Jonathan and I have spent hundreds of hours listening to indigenous leaders from multiple sectors across Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East. I went into many of those conversations believing that I, along with many in the (cross-cultural) missions community, had already made the important shift. I believed in indigenous leadership now.

In fact, with others, I had championed it. Sometimes with an undercurrent of judgment toward those who hadn’t yet “gotten it.” But then I started listening more carefully. What I heard forced me to look again at what we actually mean when we say “nationals” or “indigenous leadership”. I began to recognize three types of assumption in practice.

1. We accomplish our mission by sending foreign leaders.

2. We accomplish our mission through indigenous leaders.

3. We accomplish our mission with indigenous leaders.

I have assumed and participated in the outcomes of all three.

We accomplish our mission by sending foreign leaders.

I am regularly surprised at how many people... still believe Americans are the best solution to going anywhere and everywhere.

I am not going to spend much time here as it is less common now. However, I am regularly surprised at how many people I meet who still believe Americans are the best solution to going anywhere and everywhere. Yes, they have shifted away from "West to the Rest" thinking and now are more likely to use the new phrase "Everyone to Everywhere’".

However, my concern with this new language is that it feels like an addition to, or partial revision of "West to the Rest" simply accepting that other nations are now part of the workforce. It allows for the West to continue doing what it has always done without deep reflection on other issues connected to this practice.

There is still a place for foreigners to cross borders. But it looks very different from how it has been.

There is still a place for foreigners to cross borders. But it looks very different from how it has been done in the last decades. 

We accomplish our mission through indigenous leaders.

This approach was the first iteration of change for those who first invited indigenous leaders into their workforce. The language sounded something like: "Why spend $100,000 (per annum) sending an American overseas when that same amount could fund ten or twenty local leaders?" Thinking also includes, "They already speak the language. They understand the culture. They don’t need visas. They can begin immediately".

Beneath the efficiency argument sits two worrying assumptions.

It sounds responsible. Efficient. Good stewardship. But beneath the efficiency argument sits two worrying assumptions: the mission is ours and indigenous leaders are brought in as an efficient way to serve it.

The Western organization decides what needs to happen. We build the strategy, raise the money, and define the outcomes. Only then do we look for indigenous leaders who can deliver it. That is what I mean by "through", and I have been confronted by what it can produce. It has been both heart breaking and jarring as a missions leader who has perpetuated this approach.

Stop sending money to pastors. You are killing the church.

In Central Asia, we asked a group of Christian leaders, “What do you want to tell the Western Church?” The answer was blunt, “Stop sending money to pastors. You are killing the church.”

They explained that local Imams (Muslim leaders) were pointing to Western-funded Christian pastors as evidence that Christianity was a foreign religion funded by America. Meanwhile, those same Imams were helping people in their communities start businesses.

We later met a pastor in the region who had received Western funding since becoming a Christian. When he returned to his father’s village, he was ostracized. People suspected he was working for foreigners. Probably a spy. Eventually, he stepped away from outside funding and started a small agricultural business. Something changed.

He was contributing something his neighbors valued. They understood where his income came from. His work gave him a natural place within the community. His faith hadn’t changed. His credibility had.

The way they brought (the gospel) has left us with an impotent church.

A Turkish leader gave me words for the larger problem: “We are indebted to Western organizations for bringing the gospel, but the way they brought it has left us with an impotent church.” That hurt. But I needed to hear it.

These leaders were not dismissing what previous generations had done. Almost universally, I heard gratitude. But gratitude did not keep them from naming the unintended consequences.

So I find myself asking:

• Are we valuing indigenous leaders for who they are and what God has entrusted to them, or because they can accomplish our objectives more cheaply and effectively?

• And have we sometimes reduced indigenous leaders to instruments of a vision conceived somewhere else?

We accomplish our mission with indigenous leaders.

Conducting missions activity with indigenous leaders is different though it sounds similar, it represents genuine progress. Here, indigenous leaders are not simply the workforce. They are respected partners. Their contextual knowledge matters. Their voices are sought. They sit at the table, hold meaningful positions, and sometimes are given leadership positions in the Western organizations.

I have championed this model. But my recent listening has made me wonder whether we stopped halfway through the change. A friend conducted extensive research among Majority World leaders working inside Western organizations and he heard comments like:

• “We have positions but no voice.”

• “We have a seat at the table but little power to influence.”

• “We have learned to sing the song needed to blend in.”

That last sentence has stayed with me.

We may genuinely invite indigenous leaders into leadership while still requiring them to inhabit a system built somewhere else.

So we may genuinely invite indigenous leaders into leadership while still requiring them to inhabit a system built somewhere else and for someone else. That is the distinction between through and with.

"Through" makes indigenous leaders the delivery mechanism. "With" genuinely values their participation, but the structures, priorities and power can remain largely unchanged. We may have changed who sits at the table, but have we changed what their presence at the table is allowed to change?

So I find myself asking harder questions:

• Who sets the agenda?

• Who controls the money?

• Who defines success?

And what happens when the leaders we say we value tell us that our strategy, priorities, or even our understanding of what their nation needs is wrong?

It sounds like stewardship. It is actually a system of dependency.

A seat at the table matters, but a seat at the table is not the same as a voice with the power to change what is served. It sounds like stewardship. It is actually a system of dependency wearing the language of partnership. Which brings me to the shift I now believe we need to explore. The next step Scatter is focused on.

A shared mission led by indigenous leaders.

The mission isn't ours, it's God’s.

The starting point is embarrassingly obvious: "the mission isn’t ours". This is something I hear often from the indigenous leaders I meet with. "The mission isn't ours, it's God’s". I would have always said this but my actions and the systems I represented communicated something different to the indigenous leaders I met.

And if it is God’s, perhaps our first task when entering another place is not to bring our vision but to discover where God has already given one.

Flourishing communities of Jesus-followers are emerging.

This is what has surprised me most in my travels. Again and again, I have met extraordinary leaders with God-sized visions for their nations. Most often they have been leaders with roles in the marketplace and local churches. They are thinking about the transformation of their nation. God’s kingdom made visible across business, education, agriculture, technology, families, neighborhoods, and government. Flourishing communities of Jesus-followers are emerging to ensure more and more outposts of Eden are seen.

They aren’t waiting for us to bring God’s mission to them. God was there before our plane landed. What if we actually arrived believing that?

It means coming under indigenous leadership.

The invitation I increasingly hear is: God has given us a vision for this place. Come help us accomplish it. And that requires us to change our posture completely. It means coming under indigenous leadership.

I use "under" deliberately, although most of the indigenous leaders I know would choose the language of mutuality—which, I believe, is the answer. However, I am still in the early days of understanding what mutuality looks like but I already have a framework for "under". We work under leaders all the time. We submit to visions we did not create. We contribute our gifts toward priorities someone else has established. So why does that become difficult when we cross a border?

Could we bring our relationships, experience, talent, and capital and place them at the service of a vision we did not create? That question changes everything. It also makes things inconvenient.

Relationships don’t fit neatly into funding cycles.

Trust takes time. Relationships don’t fit neatly into funding cycles. Local leaders may define success differently from us and from our donors. They may ask for something which we may feel is not complete. They may not need our program or our strategy. Sometimes they may not even need our money. Would we still engage? Are We Willing to Show Up Differently?

A few years ago, I sat at four different tables with four Majority World leaders. Different nations. Each had built significant indigenous expressions of kingdom work. Independently, each said essentially the same thing: “We used to say to the West, ‘You are welcome if you can show up differently.’ Today we say, ‘You are not welcome because you have proven you cannot show up differently.’” Four leaders. Four tables. The same message.

Could we (Westerners) be becoming an obstacle to the very mission of God we are trying to advance?

Something changed in me. I used to worry that the West was losing relevance in global mission. Today I find myself asking a more troubling question: Could we, in some places, be becoming an obstacle to the very mission of God we are trying to advance?

Not because our intentions are bad or because previous generations did no good. But because the control of the money gives us power. Our positional leadership in many of the global organizations gives us power. Our history creates power. And power is remarkably difficult to surrender.

Let me say that I don’t believe the answer is Western withdrawal from cross-cultural missions nor is it Western shame. That would simply find another way to keep us at the center of the story. I believe the West still has an extraordinary contribution to make, but perhaps making that contribution in this next era will require a fundamentally different posture. I am still learning what that means.

I have participated by sending, and working through and with. But believe these need to end as we seek to understand what shared really requires.

Where might what God has entrusted to us serve what he has entrusted to them?

Increasingly, I think it begins with different questions:

• What is God already doing here?

• Whom has he already raised up to lead?

• What vision has he entrusted to them?

• And where might what he has entrusted to us serve what he has entrusted to them?

Those questions sound simple, but living them may require us to change almost everything about how we have shown up previously.

Perhaps that is precisely the change this next era requires.

Originally published by Scatter. Republished with permission.

Andrew Scott is a leader and speaker committed to paradigm-shifting conversations, having served as president of a major non-profit and now as CEO of Scatter. I relentlessly pursue God’s answers to big questions and champion the “All of Life” message, helping Jesus-followers see their work and everyday lives as meaningful to God.