I was reading the ABWE (Association of Baptists for World Evangelism) list of basic qualifications for being a missionary. You can read them by clicking below:

Basic Qualifications for Missionary Service with ABWE

I find them to be, generally, a good list. I found it interesting that there is no specific mention of “Calling.” I assume that this is partly a response to decades of overemphasis on a poorly defined understanding of what it means to be “called to missions.” Some people feel certain that their interest in mission work must be a direct calling of the Holy Spirit to go into overseas ministry. Others may go the opposite extreme and never embrace their path to missions because they are expecting some sort of Isaiah 6 or Burning Bush experience. This doesn’t mean that ABWE throws out the idea of calling (based on this particular webpage at least). Rather, they put it under “Church Member.” In it, ABWE notes that they are not a “sending agency.” Rather, the local church is. So if the local church wants to send a person, ABWE is interested. This suggests one of two things— either that means that the local church is responsible for identifying the “Call to Missions,” or perhaps they see it as the “Call to Missions” is the same as the “Call of the Church to Send.” Or perhaps it is a bit of both. One could argue whether the Holy Spirit in Acts called Barnabas and Paul to go on their first missionary journey, or that the Holy Spirit called the Church of Antioch to send them. It is kind of a bit of both, really.

The qualification that gave me a bit of pause was “Gospel-centered.” I will quote it here:

We hope you share our passion for evangelism and discipleship through planting and multiplying local churches. For us, platforms like medical ministry, education, and poverty relief are simply bridges to take the gospel to the unreached to spark new church communities.

The term “simply bridges” kind of got me a bit. I suppose the expression gets me on two aspects.

#1. ”Simply bridges” suggests that social ministry platforms have no value except to the extent that they “take the gospel to the unreached to spark new church communities.” This is classic “Ulterior Motives” view of social ministry. From my perspective our mission theology should be Biblical with emphasis in the example of Christ. We find in Jesus a much more nuanced understanding of social ministries. Yes, Jesus did social ministry (such as healing or feeding) to underscore His message of the Kingdom, serving as a bridge to respond to the gospel message. However, that is not the whole story. Numerous times Jesus healed because He was “filled with compassion.” As such, social ministry is a response to need identifying who He is, not just what He wants them to do. Relatedly, it identifies in some way what the Kingdom of God is like, as it reveals who God is. If God is love, and the Church is to identified primarily by love, social ministry should indeed be, in part, an outflowing of that love— in some sense an end on its own needing no further justification— carrying out an aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant of being a blessed people so that we can bless others. Social ministry may indeed serve as a bridge, but that is not all it does.

#2. ”Simply bridges” suggests that bridges are not all that important. At least that is how it sounds. Bridges, however, are hugely valuable. Theology bridges God’s revelation and Man’s setting. Contextualization bridges God’s message to our understanding. Translation bridges one language to another. Physical bridges connect islands, sides of a river, cities, communities, and more. Bridges should never be undervalued. To me it is like saying “The Heart Simply Pumps Blood.”

Now, I really need to bring up a BIG caveat to what I have just written. This is that ABWE was probably not trying to express a robust theology of missions. (In a previous point they make it quite clear that they are more concerned with Doctrine than Theology.) Rather, it could be that they were simply expressing a personal choice based on their doctrine and history. Historically, ABWE formed out of the controversies between liberal and fundamentalist factions among the Baptists in the early 20th century. Some of this showed itself in missionary hospitals where medical missionaries were to focus on physical needs and NOT address spiritual needs. This deprioritization of spiritual needs led to the ABWE splitting away from its denominational mission roots. The statement I am quoting here can be said to be an expression flowing from that controversy. That may be one reason why the sentence I am quoting starts with “for us.” It is as if they are saying, “Based on our historical roots in turning away from the so-called Social Gospel movement, platforms like medical ministry, …”

Anyway, I am not speaking ill of ABWE. My wife and I had thought about applying with them for mission work decades ago (I don’t THINK we ever turned in an application, but I think we might have asked for an applicaiton— I truly cannot remember). We have friends who are retired from ABWE or still with them. I guess I wish that they worded things a bit better (better in my view at least). Perhaps I would suggest something like this:

Gospel-centered.

We hope you share our passion for evangelism and discipleship through planting and multiplying local churches. We utilize platforms like medical ministry, education, and poverty relief at times but choose to do so primarily to open up doors of the hearts of people and communities as valuable bridges to the message of the Gospel.