Someone once said, “The water is free, but someone has to pay for the plumbing.” The water of life is absolutely free, but the “pipeline” to deliver it to the entire world as Jesus has commanded is very expensive. Would Jesus leave us an unfunded mandate?  No, God pays for what He orders—and He has ordered world evangelism!

World evangelism is expensive! A missionary has the same expenses that we have here in the U.S.A. plus many expenses that we don’t have. He might walk days through the jungle to reach his home or preaching place, or he can arrive in a few minutes by air. Do you suggest walking or flying? Remember that he has a wife and a few kids! Flying costs hundreds of dollars in a fixed-wing plane and at least double that in a helicopter. Another missionary may pay $2,500 a month rent and $7 a gallon for gasoline.

There does not seem to be enough money to meet the need. It is taking some missionaries four or more years to raise the support needed to live on the foreign field. If they could raise support in one year, the rest of that time could be better spent on the field learning the language and culture. (This would make the missionary a much more effective communicator of the most important message on earth.) Also, churches could save the money spent on meals, motels, and love offerings for the missionaries during those three extra years of deputation. Missionaries on the field are often times scraping by; lack of funds might lead some to leave the field temporarily or permanently. Many are forced to spend their entire furlough on the deputation trail to raise more support, and when they return to the field, they are as tired as when they left it!

Most churches do give to missions, but we need many more giving much more. Some churches give a small percentage of their income to missions. Though good, that has definite limitations, and it does not involve individual giving. There’s a better way. The One who ordered the Great Commission is helping many churches to support many more missionaries by a practice commonly called faith promise giving. Some prefer calling it grace giving. Whatever name you use, it involves individual church members seeking God’s will about a specific amount for missions and trusting Him to provide it. In recent years, this faith promise plan has been promoted by Oswald Smith, Clifford Clark, Charles Keen, and many others; but it goes back at least to the Apostle Paul. In the 8th and 9th chapters of II Corinthians, he explained the principle and showed how a group of poor, persecuted believers in Macedonia gave more than was humanly possible. This principle is illustrated by the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Jesus put the burden of feeding 5,000 plus people on His disciples. They looked at their resources and concluded that it could not be done. Jesus told them to seat the people and promise them a meal. You know the rest, but we need to see that Jesus gave the bread and fish to the multitude through the twelve. They got the blessing of giving, and He got the glory! Jesus will put money into our hands when we promise to give it to send missionaries. Even as the disciples made several trips between Jesus and the rows of hungry people, so must we be faithful to give and then return for more. Jesus had plenty for all, and the disciples faithfully served the back rows, too!

A book could, and maybe should, be written about the people and churches that practice faith promise today. A church in Decatur, Texas, that has half of their approximately 120 Sunday morning attenders giving to missions, is supporting 112 missionaries at $80 per month (they want to increase it to $100). The pastor reports that when the people got a burden for missions, their church was revolutionized. The people did not rob Peter to pay Paul. The general fund did not suffer; to the contrary, it grew tremendously. The church is completely debt free. They recently built a fellowship hall and a new parking lot costing $640,000, and it was paid for within seven months! They have sent out their own missionary family, and others will probably be sent soon. A country church near Paradise, Texas, with an attendance of 200 has also caught on to faith promise giving. Traditionally, they gave 15% of the church income to missions. Over time, as their desire to obey the Great Commission grew, they raised that amount to 25% which amounted to a very respectable $60,000 per year. In 2008, the pastor suggested, “Let’s give 25% and also begin faith promise giving.” The first year they gave $120,000. Last year they gave $180,000. They divide each month’s mission offering between sixty-four missionaries, giving each one an average of $234 per month. God has also blessed their general fund beyond measure.

If time and space would allow, hundreds of examples could be given of people—even poor people—around the world that follow the example of the churches of Macedonia. They love Christ and want to make Him known to all. They have compassion for perishing souls without the knowledge of Christ. They first give themselves to the Lord and to His mandate. God puts money in their hands, and they faithfully give it. The need of the hour is not more churches doing what they can do; it is rather letting God do what they cannot do!

Barnabas and Saul were sent from the church at Antioch and took with them John Mark as their “minister.” They had not gone far when John decided, for whatever reason, to return to Jerusalem. The Bible does not give the reason for his premature departure; no doubt it was justified in his mind.  Maybe John felt that he was not really needed. Perhaps he was homesick. He was probably unprepared for the fierce spiritual warfare they encountered. He was no doubt shaken by the harsh response of Paul to Elymas, and the sudden blindness that struck that false prophet.

Premature departure from the mission field is still a serious problem. A pastor friend in Bowie, Texas, recently stated that his church has lost twelve missionaries in the last three years. In two years (2007 to 2009), thirteen Fundamental Baptist missionaries left Romania. It is our opinion that specialized pre-field training in language and culture learning, such as is available at BBTI, helps the missionary learn the language and adapt to the culture. Being able to communicate well and enjoy being with the people makes missionaries feel at home and decreases their temptation to leave.

Sometimes departure from the field is unavoidable. Missionaries die or become seriously ill. Advanced age may cause them to leave. Some are needed at home to care for aging parents. Political strife can force a missionary from his country, but does he have to return to America? Why not go to a nearby country with the same language where his message is also needed and where he can wait out the political upheaval in his country? Avoidable or not, his departure may leave a group of people without a gospel witness. It is especially lamentable if the departure was preventable.

According to William Taylor in Too Valuable to Lose (1997), 47% of our missionaries leave the field within the first five years. Of this number, 71% leave for preventable reasons. He found that 49% of departures are caused by relationship problems. In other words, the missionary had an unresolved conflict with the nationals, with other missionaries, or with his sending church or agency. The conflict might be between spouses. The stress of living in a new culture will exacerbate marital problems, and there will be no pastor or counselor nearby to help. Any type of defect will be revealed under the pressure of missionary service.

Another preventable cause of premature departure is immorality. If we think pornography and sexual allurement is prevalent in our country—and it is—it’s even greater in other places. As desperately as we need missionaries, we don’t need those with shaky marriages or moral weaknesses!

Probably the most commonly given reason for departure is health problems. Nobody wants a missionary to suffer for lack of medical care, but some questions are in order: Is the local medical service really so inferior that he must leave his field? Could someone be sent to help the family while they take advantage of good, affordable medical care in nearby places like Bangkok? Is the sickness really that serious, or is it exaggerated by culture stress? How can we better prepare the missionary to cope with that stress? When a family coming home for health reasons does not return to the field after the patient is well in a few weeks, should we not help the missionary deal with any further issues that are keeping him home?

Perhaps more careful screening should be done before sending out a new missionary. It would reduce the number of missionaries sent, but it may reduce premature departures.  Consider the words of BBTI graduate and veteran missionary John Allen:  “[We cannot overemphasize] the importance of the home church, and especially the pastor, being personally involved with the missionary he sends. In our experience, missionaries are sometimes sent with the approval of their church, but the pastor and church actually don’t know them well. The missionary may have a boatload of problems that are neatly covered up in the veneer of his appearance at church on Sunday and Wednesday. But what is his home like? How is he spiritually? What issues does he struggle with? To whom is he accountable for those issues? When things go all helter-skelter on the field, it will be the pastor who should be foremost in giving counsel to the missionary because he knows his missionary. A missions degree and BBTI training don’t make up for a home church pastor not knowing his people; and if he is sending those people half-way around the world, he better know them well. The mission field will bring out and magnify every flaw, fault, sin, failure, and lack of character.”

“Too valuable to lose” describes a missionary. Two thousand years ago, the harvest was plenteous and the laborers were few; that situation has only gotten worse. There are too many places with no missionary. People are perishing with no hope. We need every Bible-believing missionary we have—and thousands more. It is a tragedy to lose even one, especially if it is preventable.

Satan, as is his custom, was in a good place, disrupting a good plan, and causing strife between good people. Paul and Barnabas, two mature, experienced, Spirit-filled missionaries, had such a disagreement that they disbanded their very successful evangelistic team. The separation didn’t result from one of them falling into doctrinal error or immorality, nor was there disagreement about the mission. The issue seems trivial to us—it wasn’t to them. “And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city … And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark … And Paul chose Silas … (Acts 15:36-40).

Preachers ask, “Who was right and who was wrong?” My short answer is neither and both! What we should be asking is why it happened and how   missionaries should deal with such conflicts today. The enemy did not want the missionaries to visit the new converts throughout Asia Minor, and he still actively opposes the work of missions today. He doesn’t want missionaries to go out, he doesn’t want them to stay where they are desperately needed, and he doesn’t want them to return to the field after furlough. Many problems bring missionaries home prematurely, and interpersonal conflict is one of them. What happened in A.D. 52 still happens today.

Paul might have said, “John Mark is a quitter. God’s work requires dependable men, and he failed us once before. We need Christian soldiers, not boys who run home to mama the first time we face the enemy! I can’t believe Barnabas is practicing this type of nepotism, showing favoritism to his nephew. Barnabas is too soft. He should have learned better after all the hardships and hard cases we have dealt with. Mark really hurt our first journey when he abandoned us. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!”

Barnabas was never this passionate about anything before. Now he was questioning the wisdom and will of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. Perhaps he said, “Paul, you care only about the work, not people. You won’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt or a second chance. Mark has potential, but you are writing him off because of one little failure. Well, if John Mark doesn’t go, neither do I!”

The argument must have gone something like that. But why did it happen, and why did God record it? Both men apparently forgot that “Only by pride cometh contention,” and “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.” When a disagreement occurs among missionaries, they should immediately ask themselves, “Am I being proud? Must I get my way this time?” They must give “soft answers,” remembering that anger may be an invitation to the enemy. “Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil.” They must discuss without demanding.

God recorded this embarrassing occasion to teach us. Teamwork is a wonderful but fragile thing. Both men had strengths and weaknesses, and together they made a good team. But this day, each man’s strength became his weakness!

No doubt Paul assumed that Barnabas would follow his leadership as he always had before. Barnabas may have grown tired of Paul assuming and getting his way. Barnabas wanted some respect for once! He may have said, “Paul may have power to perform miracles, he may write letters under the inspiration of God, but where would he be without me? I introduced him to the church at Jerusalem when everyone was afraid of him. I went to Tarsus for him and got him involved in the church at Antioch. The Holy Ghost called me just as much as him; I left my position of leadership, too. I faced the same dangers and deprivations that he did. It’s about time Paul listens to me and values my opinion! After all, I was making great sacrifices for Christ when he was still persecuting Him.”

There was contention, not communication. They stood their ground, instead of kneeling on the ground. They spoke their opinions, but they did not seek God’s. They ignored their own teaching, “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” Neither did they ask counsel from the pastors in Antioch. There was both divine and human help available, but Paul and Barnabas did not take advantage of it.

The sharp contention did not end Paul’s and Barnabas’s missionary careers. Instead, two teams were formed—a good thing, but a poor way to go about it. Paul and Barnabas kept going in spite of the interpersonal conflict; today’s missionaries often don’t. Sometimes one or both leave the field. And where does that leave the young converts and the heathen they were sent to reach?

A new missionary going to a Pacific island country told me that the missionaries there get by with English. I said, “Brother, God has not called us to get by but to communicate!”

Missionaries, like anyone else, usually look for shortcuts. Let’s face it; we don’t like to do things the hard way. Learning a new language and culture is uncomfortable, frustrating, embarrassing, difficult, and it takes a lot of time. Since many people in foreign countries are learning English, doesn’t it make good sense for the missionary to avoid all the hassle of language learning and get by with English? Isn’t quicker better, especially when it comes to preaching the gospel? Wouldn’t it be wise for the English-speaking missionary to simply begin to minister in English upon arrival in his host country rather than spending untold months learning a new language? When dealing with the uneducated or older members of the group, he could hire a translator to interpret his message. The quick and easy get-by-with-English approach may appeal to many; but it might very well be the biggest mistake a missionary will ever make!

The question to ask is not how well the native person speaks English, but rather, how well English speaks to him. English is becoming a universal trade language. Some foreign countries are even conducting their education in English. But this can be deceiving. A missionary from Africa noted, “The people here learn English in school, and when they leave the school, they stop speaking it. They only speak English to foreigners when they have to.” Does the missionary want to remain a “foreigner” among them forever? A recent BBTI graduate on a short-term mission in India was told, “You aren’t a foreigner; you are one of us.” This is probably because she is trying to learn their language and culture. A missionary unwilling to give up his language in favor of the native one,  may be sending a message that he considers his language superior to theirs. This arrogant attitude, whether real or perceived, will not ingratiate him to the people.

All a missionary needs to do is listen to the people. Are they speaking to one another in English? If so, then English is their language. However, if they speak their own local language among themselves, then he should learn that language, if for no other reason than to be more accepted and respected by the people. But there is a better reason to refuse to minister in English.

The formation of a person’s worldview (his knowledge and beliefs about spiritual matters) begins at a very young age and is developed in his heart language and culture. The vocabulary he uses to discuss his beliefs is spoken in his heart language. His views and feelings abide in his mother tongue, not in the trade language, no matter how well he has learned it. When deep spiritual concepts are presented to him in a trade language, it is like eating soup with a fork or a straw. Too much is lost and not enough gets through. Misunderstanding and syncretism often occur. The missionary who cannot understand the heart language is probably unaware of this confusion. He may see some response from the people. They may attend church services and even bring the Bible he gave them. (Whether or not they read it at home is questionable, especially if it’s written in their second, third, or fourth language.)  The missionary that doesn’t know the local language doesn’t understand what the people are saying about his teaching. He knows what he has said, but what the people understand could be very different. And he remains blissfully ignorant.

If the message is as important as he says it is, and if he loves the people as much as he says he does, then the missionary should seriously consider taking the time and enduring the discomfort to learn the new language. Or, he can avoid all that and get by with English.

A missionary planting a church in a new culture is faced with decisions concerning which native practices can stay and which ones must go. The truth of the matter is, there are three cultures involved in missionary work: the culture of the missionary, the culture of the people, and the culture of God. May the Holy Spirit give the missionary discernment to know the difference!  There will be practices on the field that the missionary does not like. These practices may be wrong in American culture, but he must determine if they are also contrary to the Word of God. The bride price is one example.

In many places in the world, a young man must pay a certain price—often a high price—for his bride. (A dowry system, in which the groom and his family receive money or things of value from the bride and her family, is probably less common.) Is this practice of buying a wife a bad thing? Perhaps greedy men are abusing it. Should the missionary try to outlaw it among the people he reaches for Christ? Does it not seem something like slavery or buying cattle? Does it not denigrate the woman, making her like property?

Suppose an American missionary has a group of new converts, and he learns that the people have the bride price system. To him it seems un-Christian and degrading to the woman. He demands that his group stop this practice, and he succeeds in forcing the people to conform. Perhaps they adopt the missionary’s conviction, but more likely it’s because of the strong influence of the American. They might think their salvation depends on conformity to the rules of this new God. Just as they lived before trying to please and appease the spirits, they now want to please this new God. Or maybe they see obedience to the missionary’s rules as the way to receive the blessings (stuff) from the missionary’s God. But whatever the motive, they stop paying the bride price. The young man might be happy because now he gets his wife free, and the missionary sees it as real spiritual growth.

Now let’s consider some possible results that the missionary didn’t foresee. The new wife becomes the brunt of gossip, ridicule, and perhaps ostracism by the women because she was not worth anything as a bride. The other women feel valuable because their husbands paid a great price for them. This Christian bride feels cheated and devalued. She may even despise this new religion she felt forced into. The status of a woman in her village has always depended on the price that a man was willing to pay for her. Even worse, this new Christian marriage may be looked upon by the community as no marriage at all. In the culture of the missionary, a marriage is legitimate because of a piece of paper called a marriage license. Here laying down the bride price in a public ceremony may constitute a marriage; thus the union promoted by this new, little group called “Christians” is seen as nothing more than fornication. Then what does this make the children born of the “Christian” union? Bastards! Another problem may also arise. Usually, if the bride is unhappy and goes home to mama, the groom’s family must repay the price paid for her. They certainly do not want to do that! Therefore, they will help the couple stay together, even pressuring the man to treat his wife better so that she will stay. Without the bride price, would new Christian marriages last?

Any missionary will be faced with  questions of right or wrong. The problem is that he thinks his answer must be either “yes” or “no.” But there is one other possible answer: “I don’t know.” None of us like this answer. We want it to be yes or no, right or wrong, black or white. We Americans believe that our cultural rules are biblical, and many of them are. However, when confronted with another culture and its rules, we are quick to judge the new culture in   light of ours. If things are different, we tend to judge them to be wrong. On deputation, every American missionary will say, “I’m not going there to make the people Americans but Christians.” But he proceeds to do everything in an American way and oppose all that does not seem right according to his culture.

Is the bride price wrong according to the Bible? Its practice was not condemned in the Old Testament. Perhaps the coins in the story in Luke 15 were a type of bride price. But there is one very important bride price that was paid in the New Testament. Jesus bought His Bride!  “For ye are bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).

Obviously, the missionary is confronted with practices that are evil and must be opposed. But in questionable cases, like the bride price, it would be wise for him to gather more information. Here are a few  suggestions: 1) Obtain pre-field training in linguistics so he can learn the heart language of the people. That’s where the culture resides and is discussed. 2) Study cultural anthropology before going to the field, and then dig deep into the cultural norms of the group. 3) Refrain from speaking against questionable practices until he thoroughly understands them and what the Bible says—or doesn’t say. 4) Consider that he might be doing serious damage by removing important cultural practices. 5) Do not remove anything from the culture until it can be replaced with something better.

God tells us clearly that He is no respecter of persons. But is He a respecter of countries? Does He love some countries more than others? Is the United States of America His favorite?  No one can question that ours is a unique country, and we have seen the hand of God on it from its conception. We have been blessed; there is no doubt. There is only one country that God has blessed more than ours—Israel. While the future of America is questionable, the future of Israel is sure. God has blessed America, no doubt, because we have blessed Israel. God help us if we stop!

But why, then, do we think of America first when it comes to the gospel ministry? Why is she our first concern? Why is most Christian literature printed in English for an American audience? Why does most of the religious money stay here? Why do we keep almost all of the preachers? When a man feels the call of God to preach, why does he envision a place of service within, and almost never without, the borders of the United States?  Why does he automatically think about preaching at home without even considering a foreign place and language? Does God want America to be first, and almost exclusive, in our thinking?

There is a great disparity between the need and the disbursement of resources. A pastor friend in north Fort Worth stated that within a five-mile radius of his church, there are fifteen other Independent Baptist Churches. Bowie, Texas, a town of about 6,000, has around ten Baptist churches. (I haven’t counted them this week.) A BBTI graduate on deputation told me that he stayed at one church and presented his work in ten different churches without driving more than five miles to reach the other nine! Yet, 42% of the world’s people groups are unreached. That is 3 billion people! And we are commanded to preach the gospel to every creature. We ask a missionary, “Why are you going? Are you sure you are called to go?” Should we not also ask the pastor, associate pastor, youth pastor, music pastor, and everyone else in the church, “Why are you staying? Are you sure God has called you to stay?”

Recently I visited three solid, mission-minded, fundamental Baptist colleges. I asked every student that would stop at my display table what  they plan to do with their life. Some students told me they were majoring in missions. Most said that they wanted to be pastors, evangelists, or youth workers.

It was probably not appreciated, but I would often say something like this: “Oh, you plan to be a pastor; that’s great! A pastor is a shepherd. There are billions of lost sheep in Asia that need a shepherd. Have you considered going there?” Or, “Oh, you want to be  an evangelist. Wonderful! What does an evangelist do? He is supposed to evangelize, right? Who should he evangelize? Shouldn’t he go to the unevangelized? Where do we find the most unevangelized?” Or, “Oh, you want to be a youth director. God bless you; young people sure need direction! Did you know there are young people in every country of the world? For instance, Ethiopia has about 84 million people, and 44% are under the age of fifteen. What about all the young people in Thailand? Shouldn’t they have  a trained youth leader to lead them to Christ?” (I’m not saying every Christian worker should go to the foreign field. But everyone should make themselves available.)

Charles Spurgeon said that not all men should be missionaries, but all men should struggle with it. Maybe my calling is to help men struggle with it! I fear that far too few of us are struggling with it today. Friends remind me that I am not the Holy Spirit.  They say that it is not my job to call people. That’s true, but maybe He would use me to challenge them about their willingness to go! Perhaps even our pastors, evangelists, and youth workers need to do a little struggling and really question: Why America first?

We sometimes hear from the pulpit, “If God is calling you to the mission field, you need to surrender.”  But is that what we should be saying? God simply says surrender! Every Christian should surrender to go to anyone anywhere and to do anything; then he must let God be the One who dictates what, where, and to whom. We must be very careful  not to send a message that only a few special people have a responsibility to consider the mission field.

Since billions of people living outside our borders have never heard the gospel, shouldn’t we almost expect God to send us somewhere else?  Isn’t it the God-given responsibility of every preacher to help people struggle until they surrender? Shouldn’t he inform his congregation about unreached people groups that are perishing with absolutely no hope? Shouldn’t he plead on behalf of the thousands of groups that have no Scripture? Shouldn’t he lead his people in earnest prayer for laborers for the foreign field? Shouldn’t he ask, “Who will go for us?” Shouldn’t he examine how much money his church spends in and for America in comparison to the rest of God’s world?  Shouldn’t we all be asking: “Why is America first?”

A well-known credit card company advises us, “Don’t leave home without it!” Leaving home without something means we are going ill-prepared. A missionary, of all people, should never do this. That is because he carries a message that must be understood by a people who have never heard it before and who may never hear it from anyone else. He must not fail to deliver this message clearly. He must speak it, using sounds that he has never spoken before. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there were a small device (perhaps a computer chip implanted in his neck) that could connect his brain to his speech organs, causing him to flawlessly produce the sounds of the native language? Now that would be something he would not want to leave home without!

Although no such technology exists, there is a tried and proven linguistic skill that the missionary can learn and take with him to accomplish this marvelous function. This skill is Articulatory Phonetics.  It cannot be purchased, but it can be learned. No one argues the value of speaking a new language accurately in its grammar, its pronunciation, and its inseparable culture. The better we speak, the better we communicate. Why, then, do 99.9% of our Bible-believing missionaries leave home without this basic language-learning skill? Here are a few answers: 1) They do not know that such training is available. 2) If they have heard of linguistics, they do not understand how it relates to the missionary. 3) They are in a hurry and decide that the benefits of pre-field preparation are not worth the time it requires.   4) They don’t realize that failure to prepare is often preparation for failure. 5) They may think that the missionary theory classes taken in Bible college and a foreign language school are all they need. (Though a good language school can really help, many missionaries pass the course with an A but leave sounding like a tourist from Toronto.)

Articulatory Phonetics deals with human speech sounds. Speech is really quite simple; it consists of only one    ingredient—air. But there are scores of ways to modify this air, producing literally hundreds of distinct sounds. The English-speaking missionary without an understanding of phonetics is limited to the forty-four sounds of English. His new language will have its own set of sounds that are very different. The missionary phonetician can do four things: recognize, record, reproduce, and recall any sound that any human being can pronounce. When he hears the first word of the new language, he begins to recognize the exact sounds and distinguish them from other similar sounds. For instance, do you know that when we say words such as “eye,” “arm,” “inch,” or “us,” we actually begin these words with a consonant? It is called an “initial glottal stop.” The vocal cords begin closed, and the air builds up behind them. When we say the word, the air (a voiceless consonant) is released before the vowel. We do not hear this consonant, so it is irrelevant in English words. Not so in some languages. In a language of the Solomon Islands, that little sound can make a big difference. The initial glottal stop before “ai” means “woman”, and “ai” without it means “tree.” The sound that is inaudible to us, they hear clearly. The missionary phonetician can recognize this sound and hundreds of others.

An untrained missionary has twenty- six English letters to work with; the trained one, using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), has hundreds of symbols with which to record all the sounds he hears. Every sound has its symbol. He can also reproduce all the sounds because he understands what the native speaker is doing to produce them. The BBTI graduate has spent 150 literal classroom hours learning and practicing these sounds and many additional hours listening to recordings outside of class. Finally, he can recall the sounds. Having accurately heard the sounds and recorded them, he can reproduce the sounds (even after a long period of time) exactly as he heard them by reading his phonetic transcription. Phonetic skill is so valuable in preventing miscommunication that, I think you will agree, the missionary should not leave home without it!

There are three possible undesirable results of poor pronunciation: 1) the word will make no sense at all, 2) the word will mean something other than what is intended, or 3) the speaker will have a strange accent. An English speaker without phonetic training normally makes seven errors when pronouncing the vowels and consonants (not to mention mistakes in tone and stress) in the simple Spanish phrase “tu pelo” (your hair). But by knowing and applying phonetic principles, he sounds like a native, not a gringo from Greenville.

No missionary should attempt to learn a new language without first studying phonetics. In other words, don’t leave home without it!

It is possible that a church that believes in the Great Commission could say to a prospective missionary, “Don’t go. Please stay and help us!”? We all say that the church’s number one priority is the evangelization of the heathen; and everyone would agree that churches should send well qualified men and woman to do just that. We say it, but do we believe it? Remember, our doctrine is what we do, not just what we profess! The following examples are true; only the names have been changed.

A young man and his new bride have set their sights on a very needy island country in the Caribbean. The man has been looking toward this country since age twelve, and his wife is willing to serve beside him anywhere. In the short time since he declared his calling to the foreign mission field, he has had two serious requests from churches asking them to stay in the US and help them. The young couple just happen to be excellent musicians, and the man is very good with young people.

Don and his family have been on two extended trips to a Muslim country in Central Asia where very, very few missionaries are willing to go. They are preparing financially and linguistically to return to stay. Don has had more than two serious requests from churches here that he forget the lost Muslims in Central Asia and stay home to help them.

A certain country in Africa had just opened up to missionaries; and Robert decided that God wanted him there. He raised 90% of his support to live and work in this place. But then his home church in New York found itself in need of a pastor. They knew this brother. He was one of them. They asked him to not go to the mission field, but to stay and help them. We are not talking about a poor church with only a handful of people who would have difficulty finding a pastor. Robert assented to their request. I wonder if the people in Africa ever got a missionary.

The Iron Curtain came down in a European country, and missionaries were hurrying to get into it. God was blessing in this former communist country, and people were responding to the gospel by the thousands. A young man felt the call of God to go there. He raised 75% of his monthly support in a short time. Then his pastor asked him to stay and help in his home church.  His home town already had plenty of gospel-preaching churches (about one Baptist church for every five hundred people), and the missionary wanted to go to places where there were no churches. But he was useful to his pastor, and he stayed home. Maybe that was God’s perfect will. But it is also His will that the   church takes the message of salvation to where it has never been. Did someone else go?

Joel and Rachel had graduated from BBTI and were helping a certain Texas church that was between pastors. This young couple is planning to go to a group of people in Asia who have no Bible. No missionary is working there and none ever has. The language is unwritten, and only a well-trained missionary linguist could write their language and give them a translation of God’s Word.  This young couple is as prepared as possible and willing to go to this heathen tribe—people who literally have never heard the name of Christ. The people at the Texas church loved the way Joel preached; and he and his wife are great singers, too. We are talking about a church that loves missions. They give their money to support missionaries. They really care about the lost heathen around the world. But apparently they cared more about themselves because in essence they said, “Please don’t go to this lost Muslim group. Don’t reduce their language to written form. Don’t translate the Bible. Don’t tell them about Christ for the first time. No, don’t go; stay and be our pastor.” The missionary said, “Thanks, but no thanks. We are going!” And do you know what? In a few weeks the church found a very good man to be their pastor.

Let me tell you one more true story. Jack, a young BBTI graduate, plans to serve the Lord in a very needy African country. There are almost no missionaries in the entire country. This young man is a great children’s worker. I have seen him hold children spellbound as he teaches them God’s Word. He also has a very good singing voice, and he is a good song leader.  Jack wrote, “I have had several churches now ask if I would be willing to stay and help, but why in world would I?  I could understand it if the world had been reached but there are portions of this globe that still have not heard one word of the gospel.” Why would these churches think only of themselves and attempt to keep this young man from going?

We, like the church Antioch, must unselfishly send our best  to the mission field. The lost man of Macedonia pleaded to Paul, “Come over and help us!” Thank God the church did not send word saying, “Hey Paul, please come home. We need another teacher!”

The missionary arriving at his place of service looks like an outsider, talks and acts like an outsider, and he brings an outside message. Most of this needs to change. The missionary cannot change his foreign appearance, and he dare not alter the message; but he might find better methods of delivering that message, making it seem less foreign. People are more apt to receive a message from a friend than a foreigner,—from one of their own rather than from an outsider. The task of the missionary is to teach heathen people about a God who is foreign to them. Wouldn’t it be an eternal shame if the messenger was an obstacle to the peoples’ understanding?

A Careful Assessment

During a survey trip or immediately upon arrival on the field, the missionary should make a careful assessment of the language situation. What language will best reach the heart of the people he is targeting? I spoke to a missionary on his way to the South Pacific about getting Advanced Missionary Training at BBTI. He told me, “The missionaries there get by using English.” I said, “Brother, God has not called us to get by but to communicate!” We are always tempted to choose the quick or easy rather than the best way. But our message is vital and failure is eternally deadly. And besides, it’s not about us! It’s about Jesus Christ and the people for whom He died! The new missionary must not assume that the official language of the country will reach the heart of his people group—it may not. And the trade language may not either.  What do the insiders speak among themselves in this local area? That is probably the language the missionary must learn and learn very well. Perhaps he needs to learn an official language or a trade language to function in the country, but the heart language to reach the heart of his people. This insider language may be an unwritten one; and there probably will not be a language school or qualified tutors to teach it.

Once this careful assessment has been made and he decides to go the extra mile and learn that second or third language, the missionary must inform and educate his supporters back home about the time it will take. They may not understand or accept this delay. They may want quicker results. They might give his support to a more fruitful missionary. So be it. He must resist the temptation to simply get by, or to abandon the people group and work in the city using the trade language. Otherwise, the people he is called to reach will remain unreached!

A Critical Analysis

At the outset of his attempt to become an insider, the missionary must make a critical analysis of the language. Failure to analyze the sounds and reproduce them exactly as the natives speak will result in a bad accent. They may understand him, but the accent reminds them that he is an outsider. With prior training and skill in phonology (phonetics and phonemics), the goal of perfect pronunciation is possible. Phonemics will enable him to understand how the sounds change according to their environment. Without it, he will be unable to develop an efficient alphabet, the first step in writing the language. Preparation in the linguistic skills of morphology and syntax will help him to critically analyze how words and sentences are made. With proper grammar and good pronunciation, the messenger will sound very much like an insider when he delivers God’s message.

A Cultural Adaptation

Cultural adaptation is also vital to convert the outsider into an insider. The missionary must not only speak like a native, he must also think like one. The new culture will be unique and different from his, but this does not necessarily make it wrong. Yes, there will be wicked practices and beliefs that God will want to change, but the missionary won’t introduce unnecessary changes. Adapting to the culture will also help him overcome culture shock. Culture shock causes him to withdraw or reject the culture, thus making him act very foreign! We’ve heard of “going native.” This is a blind acceptance of   a culture, even condoning its sinful practices. It is not what we mean by becoming an insider! An insider bonds with the people, identifying with them as much as possible (without compromising his Christian belief or walk with the Lord).

We have established that the message must not change. It cannot be weakened in any way. But it can and should be taught with native teaching methods and with cultural illustrations. Anything that will make the gospel more understandable should be considered. The preaching of the cross is foolishness to the lost, but we don’t have to make it more so by our foreign speech and thinking!

A Capable Ambassador

Where can we find this insider: this theologian, linguist, and anthropologist? He is not to be found; he must be made! If the thousands of unreached people groups stand a chance of ever knowing Christ, we must produce about fifteen thousand immediately!

Communication is a very complex human activity. Using our speech mechanism, we convert thought into a series of sounds, syllables, and words whose meaning we agree upon. Depending on our relationship, the words might change. If I am the CEO, and you are an employee, I may use very formal speech. If we are friends and co-workers, I will be much more informal. The sounds enter your auditory system and are processed in your brain. You determine the meaning of the sounds and respond accordingly.

Sometimes there is a breakdown in communication. We husbands are endowed with the ability to articulate a clear message to our wives in precise words that cannot possibly be misunderstood. Unfortunately, our memories are somewhat faulty. A month or a year later, our wives (who are endowed with infallible memories) can quote what we said word for word.  Since we men cannot remember the conversation, let alone the exact words, all we can say is, “Well, maybe that’s what I said, but that is not what I meant.”

Dr. Charles Turner estimates that only eighty percent of our conversation is understood by the other person in the way we intend; and that is among speakers of the same language and culture! If that be true, imagine the potential for miscommunication when a missionary speaks to people in a new language and culture! And if he fails to communicate, his listeners will fail to understand the message of salvation!  Missionary Tom Gaudet said, “Communication is a wonderful thing—when it happens.”

As Christians, we all need to improve our communication skills; but the teacher or preacher especially needs to be sure that his words are understood in the way he intends. The burden is on him to insure that his congregation understands the message clearly. He must consider the age of the listeners, their education, and especially their spiritual level. Dr. Fred Schindler repeatedly told us ministerial students, “Put the cookies on the bottom shelf.” He wanted us to make the message clear enough for a child to understand. A missionary might say, “I gave those people the gospel, but they didn’t accept it. I did my part.” The question is not whether he gave them the gospel, but whether they understood it. If the people do not understand the message, the teacher has not yet communicated it. If I am trying to lead my son to Christ, I don’t tell him the gospel once and leave it at that. I listen and get feedback as he “preaches” what I have taught him to his little brother or to the family dog. I will probably hear some heresy. But I re-explain the message and use illustrations that he can relate to. I ask questions to see what he understands, and I do this as long as needed. In the same way, we must insure that the pagan understands the message; then the Holy Spirit can deal with his reluctance and resistance.

There is a great need today for good cross-cultural communicators. There are over seven billion people in the world, speaking nearly seven thousand languages. Very few have even heard the gospel, let alone understood it. We need missionaries; but we need missionaries that can communicate! A missionary must learn the new language. Speaking through a translator often results in miscommunication. Speaking the trade language instead of the heart language may result in miscommunication. Speaking with a strong accent will certainly be distracting and will increase the chances of miscommunication. The missionary must not only speak the new language, he must dig deep into the culture and know what the pagan man is thinking. The national already has a complete set of religious beliefs that to him are true. His father, grandfather, and great grandfather lived and died believing them. He is not going to discard them and accept something new just because some foreigner comes along and tells him he must. If he is quick to accept this new Christian doctrine, it may well be that he is only mixing it with his old belief. We call this syncretism. The pagan needs to see that his belief is wrong and that his god is false. He must turn from it (repent) and turn to the true God (believe). The missionary must patiently teach, explain, and illustrate the gospel message, making a clear contrast between the pagan’s belief and the true Way of God.  It is essential that I know where my son is in  his understanding of salvation before I lead him to make a decision. Likewise, the missionary must know what the national is thinking before he can expect him to believe unto salvation.

A missionary going to a new village is a foreigner preaching a foreign message. He distributes gospel tracts that come from a foreign-thinking mind and pen. This is not the most effective communication. Real communication requires the missionary to do his homework, linguistic and culture analysis. That is hard work, and he must prepare himself for it. Communication may also require Bible translation. Salvation and spiritual growth can happen, but there are seldom any shortcuts. Communication is indeed a wonderful thing; and we must make it happen!

I am a little overwhelmed with the rapid rate of technological advances. I admit I am a little old fashioned. The truth is I’m a technological caveman. Some call me T-Rex! It is a little disturbing when I say, “Turn in your Bible to…” and people whip out their Smart Phones. Are they ready to study the Text, or are they sending one? I must admit, however, that our modern technology is useful in reaching the world with the Gospel. We can sneak the Word of God in electronic form into places that are extremely hostile to Christians. Let’s do more of it!

We should understand what is meant by the term “technology.” A pencil is technology, as is a typewriter. Bicycles and cars are technology. A few minutes in an airplane might save the missionary a few days walk; and you don’t get bit by mosquitoes or snakes in a plane! Modern technology can and should be used to further the Gospel. But I might ask, “How are we doing?” William Cary didn’t have a typewriter, and he produced forty Bible translations. Who is coming close to that with their computers? There are still thousands of unreached people groups, not to mention hundreds of thousands of towns around the world with no Gospel witness. We lack men to go, and technology can’t replace them. We can hardly send robots and drones  programmed to shed tears and say, “I love you, and Jesus loves you, too.”

I admit I need an attitude adjustment about modern technological devices. But I think I do have a valid concern. Most of the new devices (toys) are for the purpose of communicating. On the surface, this sounds like a wonderful thing for our missionaries. They can have instant contact with their friends and family back home. With unlimited long distance calls or texts, Skype, and Vontage, the missionary can talk with folks back home several times a day. That is wonderful! Or is it? Loneliness is a big problem for the missionary. This constant contact should eliminate it. But does it? Here is the problem:  The strong bonds between the missionary and those back home can hinder the missionary from bonding with the people on his field. Bonding is a term used today to describe the strong connection between the missionary and his people. It is more than identification with them or an acceptance of them. It is an enjoyment of being with them. It is feeling at home with them. It is true biculturalism, the goal of every missionary.

We often think of the needs of the people that the missionary is there to meet. But the missionary also has needs that his people should meet. As long as his social needs continue to be met by family and friends on the other side of the world, they are not going to be met by his people. Native people may be naked and illiterate, but they are not stupid. They know if the missionary really enjoys being around them or not. They may not know the term “culture shock,” but they can certainly recognize it. They may not know why the missionary takes this little thing out of his pocket every two or three minutes and looks at it, or why he taps on it with his thumbs; but they know it is not normal behavior.

I don’t suggest the missionary throw his technology in the trash before  boarding the plane (though he would eliminate the electronic pornography available to him 24/7). I do suggest, however, that he make some firm decisions and commitments: I will bond with my people. I will not let these gadgets rob me of the time that I should spend with them. These things will be tools to help me learn their language, not toys to entertain me. I will leave my devices inside and go out and play soccer with the guys. And most of all, I will make sure my heart is here, and stays here, and not let it wander back home.

As painful as this may be, he then needs to do the hard part. He must make people back home understand that he does not love them any less, but he will not be talking to them every day. He won’t be checking his Facebook too often. He will do more praying and less posting. He won’t be calling home more than once a week.

He might have to tell someone, “I  don’t really need a text telling me you are leaving Wal-mart and heading to the mall. Send me a text once a week, telling me that you are praying for me!”

He might have to tell his sister, “Thanks, Sis, for the pictures of your beautiful kids, but if you send them every few months, that will be enough. I don’t have time to look at new pictures every day.”

It may seem helpful to have immediate access to his pastor or his dad, but maybe he needs to look more to God for wisdom in daily situations.

Missionary friend, let’s invest in technological devices that will help us; but let’s not waste money on the latest toys, just because everyone is standing in line for them. Let’s use what will help us reach our goal and resist things that distract us. Let’s use technology to get our bodies to the uttermost part of the earth; but let’s control the things that tempt our hearts to go home!

Among churches of our persuasion that are involved in missions, the term “deputation” is well understood. When we say, “He is a missionary on deputation,” we mean he is visiting churches, sharing his burden, and asking for prayer and financial support. But there is more to it that we might be missing.

The command to preach Christ to every creature is given to every pastor, deacon, and church member—to you and me. But we cannot go to all these places and learn all these languages. Our inability, however, does not relieve us of our responsibility. It does show us the need to deputize others. To deputize someone means to appoint him to do a task in your stead, to represent you in a place where you cannot personally go. The missionary you deputize is sent with your authority to do the same job that you are doing here. The sheriff cannot patrol the entire county, so he deputizes others to help him.

Our love for Christ and our desire to please Him should cause us to beg for willing deputies. Missionaries should be some of the most valued members of the body of Christ! I want to obey Christ’s great commission, but I can’t without their help. We should take seriously our responsibility to evangelize the world and highly esteem our deputies who are willing to go in our place. We need to see them as ambassadors rather than charity cases.

The cost of traveling, working, and living overseas is often very high, and most missionaries settle for less financial support than they should really have. Five thousand dollars a month is not an unreasonable figure today. Some can get by with less; but others need even more, depending on the size of their family, the country they are going to, and the type of work they will do. How long should it take a missionary to finish this deputation process and reach his field? The time he spends raising support probably includes the best years of his life because youth is an advantage in language learning and culture adaptation. The sooner our deputy begins the better.

The average church today begins supporting a missionary at $75.00 per month. (His sending church may give three times that, thus helping him get started.) But he will still need to be deputized by sixty-four more average churches. So he simply visits sixty-four churches, right? Wrong! If one out of five churches takes him on for support he is doing very well. (One out of six or seven may be more likely.) So he must visit over three hundred and twenty churches. A pastor may hesitate to give his pulpit to a missionary on Sunday morning, or to have a missionary present his burden at a poorly attended mid-week service. Therefore, the missionary can only visit about one hundred churches in a year. There are many variables, but it will probably take our missionary between three and four years to be fully deputized.

Because many churches are doing so little for missions, the churches that are more mission minded become overloaded with missionaries. A mission-minded pastor usually receives multiple calls each week from missionaries wanting to present their fields. One day, a pastor in Ft. Worth received four or five calls before 9:00 am! A missionary may dial the phone between fifteen and thirty times to speak to just one pastor. He might reach a church secretary, but he usually gets an answering machine that promises: “Your call is important to us. Leave your number and we’ll call you back a.s.a.p.” He might talk to eight or ten pastors before one gives him a meeting. When a missionary walks into your church, sets up his display and equipment, and stands with a smile on his face and prayer cards in his hand, you are looking at a small miracle! The Army or Marine obstacle course is a walk in the park compared to what this man or lady has been through! We lament the high rate of missionaries leaving their fields prematurely, but many do not survive the deputation obstacle course.

The overworked sheriff says, “Crime is increasing and people are demanding more police protection; I need more deputies!” When the county officials decline, citing a lack of funds, the sheriff might say,

“Then get more money, or stop wasting it where it’s not needed. Get your priorities right!” It is altogether right for the pastor to be saying the same thing to the church!

We should be asking how we can get more deputies to more places in a shorter time. “Ye have not, because ye ask not.” When did you last hear anyone at prayer meeting beg God for more missionaries? We can’t seem to afford the ones we have; why pray for more? Because Jesus said to! We need every member of every church personally giving generously to missions. (I did not say giving his tithe. He should give above and way beyond a miserly tenth!) He must give, not what he can afford, but what God wants to give through him Call it “faith promise,” “grace giving,” or whatever seems good to you, but we must send out more deputies!