Why It May Be Time to Stop Using the Word "Missionary" - Part 1
How can an organization named Mission Resource Network even consider stopping their use of the word "missionary"? And why would we want to do so? That's a big subject that will take several blog articles to explain. But I think the time has come for us to wrestle with the complex and troubling history that is inescapably bound up with the word "missionary." Here is a list of factors we are encountering that are creating this conversation for MRN and should be considered by every church and organization that engages in cross-cultural ministry.
1. Calling people missionaries can compromise the safety of global workers in high-risk contexts. To quote someone on MRN's staff, "If we don't change our language, we are going to get someone killed." On a governmental level, being a missionary is a forbidden career in many countries. Even casual use of that language can lead a government to refuse to grant or renew a visa. It can lead to deportation or, in some cases, imprisonment. It can make cross-cultural workers the targets of violence.
Cultures around the world have much longer memories than we do in the United States. We are very future-oriented and are too quick to dismiss issues from the past. The sins, wounds, and mistakes of missionaries from previous centuries still touch the present among cultures with longer memories. While bad actors among missionaries were not the norm, and most workers in former years were noble-hearted people who meant well and did much good, the unintended negative consequences of some of their work linger. More significantly, the way that economic and government interests from the 16thcentury onward were intertwined with missionary activity still looms large in the minds of government leaders around the globe. Workers in these contexts are careful not to use the 'm' word (as they sometimes call it). If we want to associate with these workers moving forward, we must be even more careful.
2. The legacy of western imperialism and colonialism has created a negative impression of missions and missionaries in both the non-Christian west and throughout the world (e.g., The Poisonwood Bible). I alluded to this above, but it deserves a category of its own. "Missionaries" are viewed on a range from suspicious to dangerous among non-Christians, and they are not universally seen positively inside church culture, even in countries with religious freedom. If you want to see an example, just start a Google search for "missionaries are . . ." and see the top responses Google suggests. Likely they will include “. . . colonizers, . . . bad, . . . the worst,” etc.
The following quote is variously attributed to leaders from around Africa, including Desmond Tutu. However, it seems to have come originally from the former prime minister and then first Kenyan President and anti-colonial activist Jomo Kenyatta: "When the Missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land, and the missionaries had the Bible. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land, and we had the Bible."
The words we use carry meanings we don't intend. We don't get to control the understandings and emotions that are attached to the words we employ. Using a word that is associated with centuries of colonialism, imperialism, western superiority, white supremacy, economic exploitation, and all the emotions related to those real aspects of the behavior of western nations and some of their past missions operations creates unnecessary barriers to God's mission today. Expanding Jesus' kingdom and serving others in ways that demonstrate his love should never be done in a way that triggers the understandable specter of past abuses.
3. There is tremendous confusion around who counts as a missionary that harms national kingdom workers. The title missionary often becomes a status symbol. Who gets to carry that title has more implications than we may see. For example, do nationals who do the same work as ex-pats count as missionaries? If so, should they be paid for their work? If so, should they be paid the same? If not, why not? We need to have a clear understanding of roles for inside v. outside leaders, but using the word missionary just clouds everything and makes working collaboratively and justly across cultures more complex as well as obstructing the development of local leaders.
4. The word missionary can have a hidden racist impact. The title missionary is sometimes used to convey status, which elevates white westerners over national leaders in other countries. If "missionaries" live at a level above nationals who do the same thing, or if "missionary" means a boss and is reserved for Americans (who are almost always white), we have just created some real problems or tacitly endorsed some old ones. The label missionary can be leveraged to perpetuate a form of "White Primacy" that harms the kingdom in various ways. We need to work to break down the caste system of global kingdom work that is intertwined with the language of missionaries. This impacts what we call people because words create realities as much as they reflect them.
While these are only half of the reasons I will offer for making a language change, it is easy to see we have a problem with the word "missionary." In my next blog article, I'll give the other four reasons to shift vocabulary and make some suggestions for new language. The problems we have discussed so far are ones that we need to wrestle with and consider to what degree we might have not only a language problem but also a heart problem. Then in a third article, I'll make some suggestions for implementing a language change.
This will not be easy. People who have sacrificed much and served long in cross-cultural ministries understandably have much of their identity built around the word missionary. We should honor them for their faithful service. We should not rob them of a title that means a great deal to them nor accuse them of things they have not done. Most of the harm done under the label "missionary" goes much farther back than anyone living today.
As I close this first part of what would be a sea change in global ministry circles, I think we need to ask ourselves if there is any residue of the issues I've listed still in operation in the way we think, feel, and behave in cross-cultural ministry relationships. If so, we need to face this and embrace the opportunity to change not only our language but also our mindset and heart dispositions. Our goal is to be more effective and to better reflect what God is seeking to build in our world more accurately with our participation.