The following is based on my observations of certain mission projects conducted throughout the U.S.A., and is in no way tied to my personal experience in Brownwood. Mission: Brownwood is well supported financially, prayerfully and emotionally. Rocky Springs has been a very good sponsoring church and I have no complaints.The year is 1966. A naval aviator (fighter pilot) has found himself in a dogfight with a VC Mig 23. The Mig 23 is smaller, more agile and faster than the American's jet, and the American pilot soon finds himself under the relentless pursuit of a VC fighter who smells the pending victory over a Naval officer.
The American pilot, desperate to evade the VC fighter inadvertently sends his jet into a spin. He loses total control of the aircraft. The VC pilot, confident that he has secured the demise of the American pilot, flies right by. Then, a miracle happens. The American regains control of his aircraft, and the hunted suddenly becomes the hunter. He locks onto his target, fires his missile, but it misfires and twirls toward the sea below. The only course of action now is to return to the aircraft carrier.
The American pilot was at a severe disadvantage during this confrontation with a North Vietnamese Mig 23. His aircraft was bulkier and slower than the Mig 23. It was actually hard to land on an aircraft carrier, and required special procedures to launch, because it was not designed for carrier use. It was an air force jet... forced upon the Navy as part of the Department of Defense's consolidation program.
Not only did the size and belabored maneuverability of his aircraft put the American at a disadvantage, his jet also lacked machine guns. That's right, many American fighter jets in the Vietnam war lacked machine guns... a must-have for dog-fighting situations. Why? Good question.
It all goes back to the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara. McNamara had a vision of streamlining the process of equipping the U.S. Military, shifting from a doctrine of massive retaliation to one of "limited warfare," and conducting national defense while reducing military expenditures.
Under this system, the emphasis would be shifted from small fighter jets to bombers. The goal would be to equip the military with bombers that would have limited dog-fighting capabilities. All branches of the armed forces would get the same aircraft. Why waste money buying specialized aircraft when all can buy the same aircraft in bulk. Plus, many of the expensive features, like machine guns, can be eliminated as the technology has surpassed aerial combat techniques of yesteryear. Hence, the fighter jet with no guns. McNamara believed the American pilot could fire the sidewinder missile from 70 miles away and pick a Mig 23 out of the sky before aerial combat maneuvers were necessary.
The problem was the sidewinder missile frequently misfired, and the VC figured out that if they could get their Migs so close to the Americans that they couldn't use missiles, the Americans would be sitting ducks. Hence the ratio of enemy planes to American planes being shot down fell to 3-1. While this grim statistic led to machine guns being placed on the planes, better aircraft being purchased, the Top Gun academy being founded at the Miramar base in San Diego, and a really exciting movie being made in 1986, the damage to American lives and troop morale had been done, all with the swipe of a pen by a bureaucrat who had never flown a combat mission. Sure, McNamara served in the Army Air Forces in World War II, but he served in a capacity that analyzed bomber effectiveness.
You see, McNamara, and most of those in the cabinets of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, felt they were smart enough to wage war from Washington, with little or no regard given to the needs expressed by the generals on the ground in Vietnam.
Many pastors regard missions and missionaries the same way. There are some sponsoring pastors, and supporting pastors, who feel that they have a better understanding of the mission and its needs than the missionary on the field. These pastors require that all decisions made on the mission field must first cross the pastor's desk, and then be approved by the sponsoring church. Many times, critical needs are denied... all under the guise of "missionary accountability."
To some degree, missionaries need to be held accountable. If a missionary is receiving support from his sponsoring church and supporting churches, and possibly the association, those entities deserve to know that the money they send in is being used for the purposes for which it is sent. They need to know that the missionary is spending his time on the field doing mission work. They deserve reports, and they deserve respect from the missionary. Furthermore, any decision that is going to have a direct impact on the finances or security of the sponsoring church, or one that could possibly create responsibility or liability for the sponsoring church, must be put before the congregation of the sponsoring church.
However, many times the "accountability" term is applied to situations which actually fall under the heading of "lording over." Here are a few examples:
1. A foreign missionary uses an all-terrain vehicle to travel from village to village where he preaches the Gospel, baptizes, establishes churches, and then revisits the churches that have been established. One day, the vehicle breaks down. He has it taken into a nearby town, where repair costs are estimated at $2,500. The funds are available in the mission fund at his sponsoring church. He calls his sponsoring pastor, asking that the funds be sent to him so he can repair his vehicle. The sponsoring pastor replies, "We'll have to bring this before the church in its business meeting."
Here's the problem. The supporting churches have sent that money to the mission fund at the sponsoring church
for the purpose of funding that missionary's ministry. Any attempt by the sponsoring church to withhold, delay, or regulate that fund is "lording over," not accountability. Suppose it takes two weeks to get the item before the church in the business meeting, and then it takes two to three days to get the check to the missionary (provided the treasurer was prompt in mailing the check out). The vehicle will then be in the shop possibly for a week, maybe longer, depending on which country he is in. The work has just suffered a one-month set back, and time is the most valuable commodity for many missionaries.
2. A missionary in New York City successfully evangelizes and baptizes a handful of Wall Street investors. These investors become faithful in their study of the Word, their support of the mission in NYC, their attendance, and they become active in the mission work. These mission members get some money together and desire to rent a loft space in Manhattan. The sponsoring pastor says "No. We must wait and take this before the sponsoring church."
The missionary has been faithful in teaching this mission about the "local, visible" church, and against the "universal" church, but now this congregation finds themselves at the will of another ecclesiastical body. Sound confusing? I'll never understand what makes one person or body of believers believe that they can tell another body of believers what to do with the money they've raised. If a mission can fund its own needs, let them, and hinder them not.
3. A sponsoring church votes to send out a missionary, but then forbids him from finding secular employment, while at the same time refusing to guarantee him support. They insist that he step out on faith, but they refuse to step out on faith by making sure his rent is paid and his kids are fed. I shouldn't even have to explain what's wrong with this picture.
4. A pastor stands up at an associational meeting and demands that every associational missionary give a total of the number of doors they've knocked on, the number of people they've witnessed to, the number of sermons they've preached, how much time they spend on visitation and in sermon preparation, the number of visitors and an explanation of why their missions haven't grown more. Actually, this can be a reasonable request, so long as that pastor would not be offended should his church ask the same thing of him the following Sunday.
You see, I'm all for giving an account of myself and my work. I believe that any missionary worth his salt should be willing to give an account of himself and his work. However, when you move from an attitude of reviewing the work to one of "I've got to get this missionary or mission under control," it ceases to be an accountability issue and more one of lordship.
Peter wrote, "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock." Too many people want to be lords over God's heritage. If we would repent of that attitude, maybe more missions would get started and more missionaries would be successful.
Let's pray for our missionaries, let's help our missionaries, and let's support our missionaries financially... not as lords over their work, but as fellowlaborers. May God's work prosper in the years ahead.
