There is a scene I like in the movie “Harvey” (1950) where Elwood P. Dowd, played by Jimmy Stewart, is talking to Dr. Sanderson, a psychologist played by Charles Drake. Dr. Sanderson is trying to psychoanalyze (insight-based psychology) Elwood as to his apparent delusions of an invisible creature he calls “Harvey.” Sanderson seeks to explore Elwood’s childhood to see if the name Harvey is meaningful. Presumably, he is trying to show that this invisible friend is a figment of Elwood’s imagination meeting a deep-seated need that is revealed in the name he gave him. Frustrated in the lack of progress this dialogue draws to a close with…

Dr. Sanderson: Think carefully, Dowd. Didn’t you know somebody, sometime, someplace with the name of Harvey? Didn’t you ever know anybody by that name?

Elwood P. Dowd: No, no, not one, Doctor. Maybe that’s why I always had such hopes for it.

When it comes to the term “Missionary,” I can’t quite say the same thing. I have known many people who call themselves a missionary. My mother went to Nyack Missionary College decades ago with the hope of becoming a missionary. My wife and I are considered by many people to be missionaries.

However, the term has had a rough time.

1. Many people associate the term with colonialism or with ethnocentrism. I get where that comes from. Missionaries, good pragmatists as we often are, will often walk through whatever doors are open. If a region has been “opened” by a colonial government, missionaries would commonly see that as God’s way of allowing his/her (as in the missionary’s), as well as His, work to be done. There certainly have been cases of missionaries actively supporting colonizers, or passively supporting them (often by promoting passivity among the colonized), but that doesn’t seem to be as common as has been suggested. As far as being ethnocentric… well, it depends on what one is comparing to. What are the other cross-cultural representatives? Were missionaries more ethnocentric than invading nations? Were they more ethnocentric than colonial rulers? Were they more ethnocentric than foreign trading countries? Were they more ethnocentric than historical travelers and explorers? Were they more ethnocentric than the armchair anthropologists of the 1800s? Generally, the answer is a resounding “No!” The issue is not how bad they have actually been as missionaries, clearly called by God to follow in the line of Paul and Barnabas in the missions endeavor, but that they should really have COULD have done better than they did. But “they could have and should have done better” is not exactly a hard-hitting complaint. Commonly, missionaries will use the stories, and the cultural practices and artifacts of a people. As commonly, when talking to people “back home” they have to justify why they are “using heathen things rather than just preaching the Bible.” Often missionaries appear to be more nationalistic or denominational than they really are because they have to not only contextualize their ministry in the field, but they have to also contextualize their reports to their home country and supporters.
2. Many people associate the term with something it really isn’t. I remember in my early days typing in the term “mission” and getting page after page of businesses talking about their mission statement. This is despite the fact that the term “mission” comes from the Latin for ‘to be sent out.’ I can see looking at the word “mission” as linked to business in the sense of purpose for our coming together and going out into the world. But the term mission is the Latin equivalent for Greek where we get Apostle (apostolos). It is rooted in the cross-cultural (being used outside of the Bible like a government envoy or ambassador) as well as religious (tied to the Great Commission). The term “missionary” would get page after page of references online to Mormonism. I must respect the Mormon religion in that they really know how to SEO religious terms (although it does seem like they gave up trying to get Bible verse requests to automatically recommend to one of their websites). Still, being honest here, I really feel that members of that religion co-opted the term. I don’t want to let go of the term. I know Christians often do this. Some group comes along and says, “All Hallow’s Eve” is tied to Samhaim, and then some Christian groups come out telling people that they can’t do anything fun or religious on that day because it is a “devil’s day.” That does not make sense to me, and neither does just turning over a Christian term to another faith just because they plaster that term as their own all over the Internet. (I will admit that when I type “Munson” and “Missions” today in a search engine, I mostly find stuff that I have some connection with… or sometimes articles about Samuel Munson, a missionary of the 1800s. It used to be if I typed those terms in, I would see page after page on Thomas Monson and his connection to Mormon missions. I will take a small win on that change.)
3. I also know that some people, who are Christians, really like to broaden the term, or make really narrow definitions of the term that disregard the majority of workers. Some use the term to include Short-term missionaries. By the way, I don’t really have a problem with the term “Short-term missionary.” I just don’t really like STMers calling themselves missionaries. It is kind of like the phenomenon found in the Philippines, of a person going to a 3-day seminar and “earning” a title of “Doctor” (honorary), or “Chaplain” or “Bishop.” In these cases, the transfer of money is more critical than the transfer of knowledge, skills, or wisdom. At the other extreme, some people, like Ralph Winter, really wanted the term to be used only for Pioneering Missionaries— thus negating more than 90%. Others would not honor the term for people who are not strictly focused on intentional evangelism and church planting. Between those who want to water the term down so that it has almost no meaning (including those in the Missional Church movement) to those who want to reduce through relabeling those called missionaries, or what defines a “real missionary,” it is not surprising that we end up with a term that has seen better days.

Truthfully, part of me really doesn’t want to use the term missionary. I teach in a couple of seminaries, so I can call myself a professor. My wife and I run a Pastoral Counseling and Training center so I can call myself a counselor (although my wife is much better at that than I). Since we focus on Christian leadership development in Asia, it is probably better to call myself a “Cross-cultural Minister.”

Still, I want to hold onto the term.

A. I don’t really want to give up the term to other groups. It is ours, part of our heritage for good or for ill, so let’s embrace that.

B. There is much good in Christian missions, and throwing away the term can seem like throwing away that good.

C. The term links us theologically to Apostleship, and I really don’t want to give up that term completely (either) to Peter Wagner’s disciples. Apostles were Missionaries, NOT religious power brokers accountable to no one except God. Those who say that “Missionaries” are a wholly non-Biblical category gain some truly undeserved credence if we allow the terms to be redefined or removed by others.

D. The term is, ultimately, descriptive of what we do. We are sent out by God on a mission, bridging cultures, continents, and countries to embrace an ambassadorial role on behalf of Christ. The term “missionary” explains that well… as long as we don’t lose the term to misuse by foes… or by friends.

——————-

Dr. Sanderson: Think carefully, Mr. Munson. Don’t you know all the problems with the term Missionary? Don’t you ever struggle with the use of that title?

Bob Munson: Yes, every day, Doctor. Maybe that’s why I always had such hopes for it.