Learning from a Failed Mission

I just spent four days with our 12th graders living in an Iban longhouse in Sarawak, Malaysia. This annual trip is always a highlight for our students and there are so many great educational benefits to this trip. I'll save that discussion for a future post, though because for some reason, while deep in the jungle, I had to think about Scott McLeod's 1 October post entitled, Messianic arrogance from Dangerously Irrelevant. In the post he asks,

"Am I any different than your friend or relative that insists on witnessing to you every time you see each other? Am I any different than the Hare Krishnas at the airport or the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses who knock at your front door?"

This picture is of the chapel that missionaries built for the fourteen families of the longhouse. I had visions of missionaries (like Scott) preaching to the members of the tribe while this chapel was being built. The chapel looks like it hasn't been used in years, because it hasn't. There's actually another dilapidated one near the neighboring longhouse that's a ten minute walk away. The Ibans are animists and the missionaries were unsuccessful in their attempt to convert them to Christianity.

I'd hate for the Scott's chapels (technology-rich schools) to be unused and falling apart years from now and believe that there's much that we can learn from this failed attempt. Below are just a few questions that I'd like to ask the missionaries.

• What strategies did your leaders use?
• What education did you provide? (I'm interested because there are no Iban language Bible translations)
• How did you address the longstanding animist beliefs that have been held by the Ibans for generations?
• What resources where used?
• How long did you predict that the conversion process would take?
• Did you think that if you built the chapel that they would use it?
• Was there a strategic plan in place?
• What next?

Any others you'd like to ask?

Comments

[Jim Cottrell]

Proclaiming and demonstrating the whole tiger:
For animists, the animals are present every day. Plus, the animals are presented in their entirety, such as different behaviors and their place in the ecosystem. The people don’t have to be convinced that the animal exists and the animal’s behaviors are in plain sight. As God’s creation, animals have a profound effect on people.
I think it is essential for a mission to present the whole and living word of God concerning Jesus. A mission must do more than just present the gospel. When Paul from the Bible established a church, he did more than present the gospel and motivational sermons. This is indicated by these verses:
In Acts 20:27, Paul wrote “For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.”
In Hebrews 10:7, Jesus is quoted as saying “in the volume of the Book it is written of me – to do Your will O God.” Also the demonstrative effect of having Jesus in ones life needs to be observable. In Matt 25:35 & 36, some works of the believer are listed, “for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.” As the Lord enables, a missionary acts as a shepard and is there for his sheep when they are in trouble.
The underlying though I had for the above is that if only a small part of the Christian life is presented at a mission, then defending and convincing people of the need for this life will be a struggle. But, if the whole of the Christian life is presented and demonstrated, then no defending and convincing is needed. Comparatively, if one sets a tiger lose, no defending or convincing is needed. It is not the missionary, but Christ, unfettered in the missionary, that makes a successful mission.

[Jim Cottrell]

Oops, I forgot to add my questions to the post above.
My questions are was the “whole tiger” presented and did the “Tiger” a the church daily?