I have been interested in the area of “missions journalism” for a while, in great part because of a vague sensation that many churches don’t know much about what is happening on the mission field. Such a lack of knowledge is a great disadvantage to everyone involved. The missionaries are disadvantaged because they feel less support from their churches (and this means emotional and spiritual support far more than financial), while the church members also lose out because their world remains smaller than it could, and because ultimately missionary work is not something that happens to also exist, but an indispensable part in every Christian’s life.

But what is the problem? The problem is certainly not a lack of information, unless we are talking about the missionaries who speak in vague terms about “our work in West Asia” or “our assignment in North Africa” for security reasons. (Here the lack of precise details can actually heighten the interest as we feel like we are talking to secret agents.) But missions work outside the Islamic world is usually extremely well documented. Every missions organization sends out leaflets, brochures, eMails, prayer letters, and speakers with powerpoint presentations. They organize fundraising events, run websites, write truckloads of books ranging from theological treatises to children’s comics, present their work in videos, movies, radio shows, interactive computer games, and every other known branch of mass media, and, in the case of the larger missions anyways, usually have a few people whose sole job description is to spare no efforts to make the work of the mission known.

It would be easy to say that the problem therefore lies in a lack of interest within the churches, but this, too, would be a simplistic statement. Most churches will hold missions services several times a year. Many have special prayer groups that meet during the week for the sole purpose of informing themselves about, and praying for, missions. Most have prominent bulletin boards and church programmes displaying (or should we say showcasing?) their missionaries. In case there is still any danger of their being forgotten, missionaries will offer such mnemonic devices as prayer cards to stick to your refrigerator and the opportunity to subscribe to regular updates via eMail or snailmail.

Perhaps the real question is, what kind of missions knowledge should the average Christian be expected to have? We cannot really claim that the knowledge is insufficient unless we have some definition of what we mean by “sufficient”. Does a Christian have “sufficient” knowledge of missions if he is aware that missionary work does not usually involve being the first white person to make contact with a group of savage cannibals? Or is his knowledge “insufficient” until he can recite from memory such statistics as which language groups still don’t have the Bible, or how many aircraft engineers work for MAF? As your view on what constitutes an “adequate” or a “minimum requirement” of mission knowledge differs from mine, so also will your degree of agreement or disagreement with my statement that “many churches do not know much about what is happening on the mission field.”

I am convinced that, in spite of the mountain of information that already exists on the subject of missions, there is still a need for more information, or perhaps for information of a different kind. I have several reasons for believing this:

1 – Much, perhaps most, of the missions information that exists (outside of academic circles anyways) is designed to motivate people to give. Since missionary work is the responsibility of all Christians, there is nothing inherently wrong with appealing for financial support. Such information as is dispersed with this motivation, however, usually has its inadequacies in terms of fully informing the recipient of the situation at hand. Choices of such things as wording, packaging, and selection of statistics are – calculatingly or subconsciously – submitted to marketing considerations.
2 – Much of the most important missions work being done today takes place among outcasts of society – drug addicts, AIDS patients, refugees, etc. – against whom prejudices or at least reservations still exist, even within the church. (Or dare we say, “especially within the church”?) It is simply not sufficient to say “God loves AIDS patients even though many have made poor choices in life” or “refugees need Jesus and never wanted to be a burden to other factions of society” because the second clause in these sentences resounds more strongly than the first, even if it is left out. Most churches will support this sort of work, but often more out of a feeling of guilt or a “well, someone has to do it” attitude than out of real compassion. The amount and quality of information needed to break down prejudices and reservations is more than fits into the free brochure that the missionary hands out after church services. In fact, usually what is needed is not information, but a personal experience (usually in the form of an actual encounter). But perhaps there is information that can be given to motivate people to overcome initial fears and attitudes and seek out this personal experience.
3 – It is my experience that some of the most effective missionaries on the field are the least effective at presenting their work to their churches “back home”. Many wonderfully gifted and committed missionaries have had to be called back because of a lack of support. I believe that much could be gained if someone with an independent support source and relatively impartial eye could document their missionary work for them and thereby free their hands to continue doing what they do best.

There are many more reasons having to do with the nature of missions and media, but these are the most obvious ones. So is there a shortage of information? Absolutely not. A shortage of interest? Perhaps. But I think what is really in short supply is a spirit of adventure. It is easy to settle for the established forms of communicating, simply because these seem to be the safest routes. Meanwhile, there may well be people out there doing missions documentaries in many different styles, without the larger church community taking notice. There might be a hammy adventurer taking a “Crocodile hunter” approach to missions videos. Or maybe an artist putting together collages in the style of Glenn Gould’s “The Idea of North”. Perhaps it is even worth thinking about documenting a missionary family’s misadventures during a typical “home ministry assignment” stint (this idea might actually have the potential to compete with “This is Spinal Tap”).

I guess the tone is getting a little irreverent here. My point is that there are countless new ways to explore using media to bring missions information that is sensitive and engaging while still being informative. Most missions are already making use of the wide spectrum of media technology available to them. Maybe it is time to look deeper into making use of the wide spectrum of ideas for form and content as well.

-Marco Klaue, January 2004