|
美国的全球领导力 作为任务中的领导者，美国处于失去的边缘?Is America Losing Its Edge as a Leader in Missions? 美国人不想失去任何东西。无论是一场球赛，在股市的钱，还是一宗官司或选举，我们的竞争精神，从小在我们每个人的根深蒂固，推动我们不仅希望出类拔萃，而且占主导地位。当涉及到全球范围，我们的这种精神更明显。在经济，思想，文化和军事领域，美国人不仅努力主宰，而且直到发现自己作为仅存的超级大国时才可以放松。我们是一个以霸气为中心的国家，相信我们的方式是最好的，不仅为我们，也为世界的其他国家。 我们福音派基督徒是由我们都沉浸这种竞争中，以民族为中心的环境条件下形成的。这也难怪，美国教会已经展示出了全球统治地位的精神。在某些情况下，美国教会的动机的使命已经不再单纯了。事实上，有些是以文化的必胜信念和绝对领先的西方的技术或知识产权为特征。自从赢得最后的伟大战争，许多这样的心态是我们在历史上的地位的展现，。在过去的50年里，就像美国的军事实力和商业文化已逐渐主导全球，美国教会已经占据任务的世界。当然，欧洲的任务继续存在，而且有一定的影响。然而，数字的庞大力量，美国代表团已在全球传教事业排在前位。我们已经派出了比以往任何一代在教会历史的信徒都多的传教士，花了更多的钱，提供了更多的祈祷，开发更多的程序，利用更多的技术. Americans hate to lose anything. Whether it be a ball game, money in the stock market, a court case or an election, our competitive spirit, ingrained in each of us from childhood, pushes us to want not only to excel but to dominate. When it comes to the global sphere, we are even more intent. In the economic, intellectual, cultural and military realms, Americans have not only striven to dominate but have not rested content until finding ourselves as the last remaining superpower. We are a domineering-centered nation, believing that our ways are the best—not only for us but also for the rest of the world. We evangelical Christians are conditioned by this competitive, ethno-centric environment in which we are immersed. It is no wonder, then, that the American church has taken upon itself a spirit of global dominance. In some instances, American churches’ motivations for mission have been less than pure. Indeed, some have been characterized by cultural triumphalism and a sense of technological or intellectual Western superioriority.Much of this mindset is an outworking of our place in history since winning the last Great War. Over the past 50 years, just as American military might and commercial culture have come to dominate the globe, the American church has come to dominate the world of missions. Granted, European missions continue to exist and make their impact. However, by sheer strength of numbers, American missions has taken a superior place in the global missionary enterprise. We have sent more missionaries, spent more money, offered more prayers, developed more programs, utilized more technology, and opened more people groups to the gospel than any previous generation of believers in the history of the Church! In the secular world, a feeling of smugness comes over those who find themselves at the top of the competition pile. Once gained, the position of favor is something to be held for as long as possible and milked for all the material benefits it can give. All efforts are expended to remain in control. But not so in God’s economy, especially when it comes to doing what is closest to His heart—winning a lost world to Himself. To its credit, the major part of the American church has not been stingy by selfishly holding on to its supreme position in missions. Rather, a self-imposed kenosis has been the general rule. Most missionaries have been self-emptying and even self-abasing as they have succeeded in establishing mission-sending churches in all parts of the globe. To be sure, some have been slower than others and some have hung on longer than they should have, but generally a spirit of release of control has been true of what I have observed around the world of missions in recent years. Even if this were not the case, current world trends and changing global realities would force us to reposition ourselves in an alternate mission role. As we quickly approach the end of the century and turn a major chapter in mission history, we face several trends while we lose our singular edge as the world leader in missions. Just 30 years ago the world-wide evangelical church was predominately “white, rich and West.” Its center of gravity was in the developed North Atlantic countries which we have come to call the “first world.” But as we enter the 21st century, the church looks much different. It is now composed of peoples who are predominately “of color, poor and South.” What’s more, the global church today has no center of gravity at all. Rather than one major center of influence, the church has become polycentric and largely non-western. The majority of its members are found in those under-developed countries which lie south of North America and Europe that have come to be called the “two-thirds world.” What has caused this major shift in the makeup of the global evangelical church? It has not necessarily been a decrease in church members in the evangelical churches of North America and Europe. These churches have actually grown during this period. Rather, this dramatic shift is attributed to the explosive growth of the church all over the wide span of the two-thirds world. It is remarkable how the makeup of the Church has changed from being nearly 60 percent western in 1960 to a diminished 30 percent in 1998, caused by unabated church growth across the two-thirds world. Today we are hard pressed to find a country where the Church is not found. It is indeed global. Not only has the Church finally become fully global after two millenniums, but it has also become globalized. (By globalization ,it is meant that the worldwide Church is becoming increasingly interdependent.) The cross-cultural sharing of resources, ideas, personnel and spiritual life is causing the Church to become more and more interconnected. In this ever-increasing globalized age, the American church can ill afford to stand alone, or in a position of superiority. The parochialism and isolationism of our past is being shed and giving way to increased international partnerships. One-time competitors in the work are now collaborators in ministry. These partnerships are being realized in several notable ways: American local churches directly adopting sister churches overseas, American missions working with and even under overseas national churches, and formal partnerships between American mission agencies with two-thirds world and European mission agencies. It’s an inter-active church after all! Corresponding with the worldwide growth of the church has been an increasing participation of that global Church to engage itself in mission. It, too, is reaching out across cultural and linguistical boundaries, bringing lost peoples to faith in Christ. Two-thirds world missionaries and Christian professionals are flooding the ranks of the global mission force. Recently I attended a China strategy meeting in Bangkok that demonstrated this phenomenon. Among this international group of 15 members, seven different nationalities were represented: Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Filipino, Taiwanese, Korean, and American. Another example indicative of this trend is the missionary force with the mission TEAM in Macao, of which I had oversight until recently. That small but effective team is comprised of eight missionaries who originate from four different countries: America, Taiwan, Thailand, and Malaysia. International missionary teams such as these are becoming more and more the norm. Around the globe today there are approximately 140,000 Protestant cross-cultural missionaries. One-third of this modern missionary force now comes from the two-thirds world. This changing makeup of the missionary force can mainly be attributed to an increase of two-thirds world missions. However, it should be noted that the number of long-term North American missionaries has decreased as well. Robertson McQuilkin reminds us that in this decade alone there has been a decline of about 20 percent (from 50,000 to 40,000) of long-term or career missionaries. Some of that slack is being made up by an increase in short-term and church-based missionaries. Technological advances in communications and transportation have shrunk the world in which we live. The once formidable barriers of time and distance are less and less a hindrance to missions. Technology has made our globe a man-managed workplace and recreational playground. A quick flight can jet one to the other side of the world in less than half a day. A keystroke on a computer can access information in any corner of the world in a matter of seconds. Where once we talked about going somewhere distant by crossing an ocean, we now refer to a half day’s trip to Asia or Africa as “crossing the pond.” International borders have become so porous and unprotected, that they can hardly be considered boundaries at all. Cyberspace, with no regard for borders, taxes and tariffs, has destroyed geography as we once knew it. Consequently the Christian mission, riding on the coattails of modern technology, is being done more quickly, in more places, and with more variety of methods than in any other time in history. #p#分页标题#e# Over a decade ago Marshall McLuhan, who saw our world as increasingly small and ever shrinking, optimistically labeled it a “global village”—a community where no inhabitant was far from another and where harmony might prevail. Time, however, has revealed that bringing the world closer by technology did not, in fact, bring it together in a corresponding spirit of harmony. Rather, counter trends have made this an increasingly dangerous and volatile world. Thus a search for a more accurate metaphor is needed. Given the dual phenomenon of people feeling technologically closer on the one hand, yet increasingly hostile on the other, a more probable description of our world today would be to compare it to a sports stadium—a Liverpool soccer stadium to be most exact. While the two teams (good vs. evil) compete on the field, the stands are brimming over with unruly and hostile fans. Not only are they intent on jeering the fans on the other side of the field, but they also periodically break out in verbal assault and violence toward the fans around them in increasingly dangerous bedlam. This is the kind of world into which we now send our missionaries. Physical danger and threat to life loom in most of the least-reached and unreached parts of the world where we do mission. Is it any wonder that today’s missionaries think twice before committing themselves long term to these volatile areas? In this present milieu in which the American church finds itself, can it be that, in fact, it is losing its edge as a leader in mission? The answer to that question depends on what is meant by “edge.” If it refers to a numerical edge as in a percentage of long-term missionaries now being sent, then yes, we are losing an edge. If “edge” means a decrease in ecclesiastical global influence, then again we must answer in the affirmative. But rather than being concerned or disheartened by these trends, we should take heart and be encouraged! After 50 years of being positioned as the front runner in missions, global circumstances are now allowing us to relinquish that position. With the emergence of two-thirds world missions, the task is becoming more evenly distributed across the wide span of the global Church. What’s more, one of the fundamental premises of missions—that of establishing reproducing mission-minded churches —is increasingly being realized. For this we rejoice! The greatest concern for the American evangelical church is not that it may be losing its edge to dominate in anything related to mission—other than in one important matter. That one thing is simply our effectiveness. God is not requiring us to hold an edge on anything other than the edge of effectiveness in wielding the rich resources (people, prayer, finances, technology) with which He has entrusted us to win the world for Him. Effectiveness is defined as “producing a decided, decisive or desired effect” (Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary). The desired effect and result which God wants from the American church is the winning of the last remaining unreached peoples to Him. To lose that edge is to lose God’s blessing on our missionary endeavors. Thus the more important question to ask is, “Are we being effectively faithful with the resources we have?” The core issue is not how many missionaries we send, but rather how effective are the ones we do send. It is not an issue of how much money we allocate for missions, but rather how effectively is that money being used in winning the remaining lost peoples to Christ. Greater effectiveness does not necessarily mean being more efficient. Sadly, some are efficiently doing antiquated things that are no longer relevant in today’s world. Rather, we need to constantly be asking ourselves if we are having a greater effectiveness in achieving the ultimate goal of the Great Commission, which is bringing the unreached, under-reached and nominally reached peoples of the world to Christ. One of the greatest advantages the American church possesses today is advanced technology. Although it can just as easily be a threat to the church, if properly wielded, technology can continue to keep us on a leading edge in mission. Advanced computer technology, cyberspace, DVD, the multi-lingual Jesus film, cellular phones, global mapping, and the plethora of other technology has kept us on a cutting edge in missions. However, the stupefying danger for us Americans is to consider technology a replacement for a strong missionary force. It needs to be remembered that technology must be used to advance a more effective North American missionary force, not replace it. As in every age of missions, only by the gospel of Jesus, demonstratively incarnated in the lives of flesh and blood witnesses active in the world, will the lost be won for Him. The truth of Zechariah 4:6 for the American church today could be best stated, “Not by the might of missiological methods nor by the power of technological techniques, but by My Spirit (in the lives of ambassadors) says the Lord of hosts.” This morning when I got out of bed, I did what many American men do in preparing for the day. As I stood at the bathroom sink I lathered shaving cream on my face and proceeded to shave with my trusty razor. My hand-held razor is more advanced than razors were 30 years ago when I first began to shave. That first one used a stiff, wide, opposite-sided two-edged blade that had to be alternated from one side to the other as the cutting edges became increasingly dull. Today’s razors are much more advanced and effective. Anyone who shaves by this method knows that a paradigm shift has taken place in their design. Now the head has three thin, flexible blades aligned together back-to-back in a series. These triple cutting edges working together give a much closer and longer-lasting shave than the old model ever did. That’s precisely what is happening in the world of missions today. Instead of one big blade of dominant Americans along with Europeans, there are three blades: the Americans, the Europeans, and the two-thirds world. With the new sharp edge of the two-thirds world now set into place, all are working in a redesigned configuration. The three are aligned in synergistic formation that promises to promote greater efficiency for the whole. Today’s American church still maintains a vital edge in missions, but we are not alone nor do we dominate the task. America’s edge in reaching the remaining unreached peoples of the world will be borne out as we use our God-given resources effectively in partnership with the other two mission players. n Five biggest threats to American missions that could render us ineffective: 1. Growing belief that non-believers are not really “lost.” 2. Growing tendency to do mission by proxy—substituting our money and technology for flesh and blood missionaries. 3. Increasing compassion-depleted church, especially exhausted by adjunct concerns such as ecology, reconciliation, social justice, abortion, etc. 4. Increasing fragmentation between churches-agencies-schools in the sending process. 5. Slowness in moving from traditional mission models and structures to meet new global realities. Five biggest threats to American missions that could render us ineffective: 1. Growing belief that non-believers are not really “lost.” 2. Growing tendency to do mission by proxy—substituting our money and technology for flesh and blood missionaries. 3. Increasing compassion-depleted church, especially exhausted by adjunct concerns such as ecology, reconciliation, social justice, abortion, etc. 4. Increasing fragmentation between churches-agencies-schools in the sending process. 5. Slowness in moving from traditional mission models and structures to meet new global realities. |
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
