As an American, who is also a missionary, let me share the role that I see myself playing in God’s plan.
Let me begin by saying that I am completely opposed to the first two models. It is not our job to colonialize or change cultures. We are called to present Jesus’ message, find what the Spirit is already doing in unreached communities and assist in allowing God to work in these cultures.
Since I work in areas where there are already pockets of Christians (China and Malaysia), what does that mean for me?
1. I feel that I’m called to be a churchplanter and to assist in church planting.
1.A. Since both cultures have governments who are actively opposed to certain aspects of the church and churchplanting, this means that on one level, I must assist local Christians in thinking creatively for new ways to churchplant that can work within/without the currect governmental structures.
1.B. It means that I will assist local pastors toward fulfilling the vision God has placed in their lives for planting in these countries/cultures. One of the greatest mistakes of American missions organizations in the 20th century was that they (at times) cut off partnerships with local Christians in order to start “new works” which looked and felt more like American evangelicalism. This caused many fo the local pastors to lose out on proper training and cults spread like wildfire.
1.C. It means that I will do a lot of the “legwork” (especially in the early stages of planting) that local pastors/elders/deacons, etc. are not able to do since many are bivocational.
2. I believe that I am also called to help coordinate resources between those with the “means” and those without.
Context: A few years back I took my first trip into mainland China. I visited one of China’s largest seminaries. The library at this seminary consisted of four bookshelves. The vast majority of the books on the shelves were pop-apologetics (mostly stuff that Campus Crusade volunteers had left over the years). The issues in the books were largely irrelevant to anything these young pastors will face since they are written for an American, Western audience. As I thought about how my seminary had, not only one of the biggest theological libraries in America, but simply one of America’s largest libraries…my heart broke. It also broke my heart since I knew that the churches/seminaries just across the borders in Taiwan and Hong Kong, had plenty of money and resources to help these young pastors and were doing little (if anything) about it. Most of the books (even some of Scot’s) that you and I read concerning theology have been translated into Chinese…but only into traditional characters, using grammar that is not common on the mainland. Thus, even these “translated” resources were done so in order to sell to “rich” churches/seminaries outside of the mainland and will have little influence inside. As such, I’ve had a burden for helping theological educators to find ways to get into China for teaching (both open and underground church leaders) and for finding ways to get more theological resources into mainland China.
At the same time, resources must be shared with the goal of educating locals toward producing new works on their own within their own cultural perspective. Fascinating new, very Asian, theological work is coming out of S. Korea, Malaysia/Singapore and some other parts of Asia…but that didn’t happen overnight and took years of developing a culture of theological education.
P.S. Scot, there is no way that in 1800 there were only 100 foreign missionaries, unless your definition is very narrow. There were over 100 Portugese and Dutch missionaries working in the Malaysian area where I live in 1800. They were the nuns/pastors/volunteers who populated hospitals, schools and other mission-type structures. There was (and is) a strong, but small Catholic minority due to the early Portugese influence. Conversely, there is not a Dutch Calvinist influence because the locals were so opposed to the way that the Dutch enforced laws against fellow Christians prohibiting Catholic forms of worship during the Dutch occupation.

Kyle #1
I know what’s the matter you share, because I live in Hong Kong and preach to China in cell groups weekly. Many people in mainland can read traditional Chinese except some below around 40 ages. the problem is Chinese government doesn’t let the publisher to freely publish many religious books. So pray for us in this tough environment. Many traditional China worldviews affect Chinese understanding the Western books correctly. So even the books translated to mainland’s simple characters, we still have tough works need to done.

Less than 100 American evangelical missionaries in 1800, right? When I first read the sentence I wasn’t certain. There were rather more than 100 Roman Catholic missions around the world in 1800. And though much of the Orthodox church was sharply curtailed by the Ottoman Empire at that time, the Russian Church (and other slavic Orthodox Churches) remained pretty active in its missions work.
Just making sure I understood the context of this discussion. I suppose I’ll be impressed by the power of evangelical cultural adaptability when it does what St. Patrick did in Ireland, what St. Cyril and St. Methodius spearheaded with the Slavs, etc.

On 100 missionaries in 1800 — I got that number from Noll. He got it from David Barrett, the one who does stats on the church, but there is one correction: Noll/Barrett said 100 Protestant foreign missionaries.

I have a question for Scot, Kyle (#1), or anyone with SBC understanding.
I grew up in the mainline church but currently help to lead a non-denominational church with SBC roots. Several years ago the senior pastor asked me to be an email liaison with an old seminary buddy of his who was with one of the SBC’s remote IMB missions in Zambia.
Over the years I’ve received many “prayer partner” emails from this missionary and his team, and one thing in particular has stood out to me. It appears that the team is very much focused on planting heavily SBC-distinctive churches. There is always a lot of emphasis in the emails about drinking, abstinence, abstinence-only AIDS solutions, what women should and should not be allowed to do in church leadership, etc.
It’s always struck me that these particular missionaries are imposing American-style SBC values on the cultures they encounter–I haven’t seen much emphasis on understanding the people they’re evangelizing and working with that.
I know the IMB is one of the largest missionary organizations out there; I am just curious if this is their M.O. in all situations or if I’ve just run across a particularly American-centric group.

The only church I’ve been a part of is an SBC church. I’ve heard lots of missionary reports over the years, read all the publications, etc. My perception is essentially the same as yours Eleanor. Any cultural adaptation seems to be superficial at most. By and large, the churches the IMB establishes are transplants of the core American SBC culture. There are probably some exceptions. It’s a big organization with lots of missionaries. But they put those missionaries under a lot of tight doctrinal scrutiny and control, far more tightly defined even than the diversity you’ll find in the SBC churches in the US.
I look at the timing for the rise of Prostestant missionaries and it does coincide with the peak of Western colonialism. I doubt the two are unrelated, but I also have my doubts that the relationship is merely correlation.

“Evangelicals tend to follow charismatic leaders instead of the power of tradition.”
Hopefully this is said as a criticism, not a praise.

Jim Marks @ 7,
Can’t it be both?

eleanor,
I served as a student summer missionary to Zambia in the summer of 2002. Granted, things have probably changed since then, but I found the SBC missionaries on the ground there to be very independent thinking, most of them having signed the 2000 BF&M only b/c they felt it best to stay and continue their ministry rather than to be removed from it. I say this b/c at the time, and currently, I have many, MANY issues with the SBC, the biggest one the 2000 BF&M, but my respect for those missionaries remaining behind and the work they were doing grew as I saw that they were doing things very differently.
(I was there on a mapping project, collecting GPS data for churches in the bush of Zambia so that the missionaries could focus on areas with NO churches instead of working in areas that already had a christian church).
All that said, I still struggle with the idea of missionaries and it smacking of colonialism. My parents were both SBC missionaries in the 80′s who left during the Fundamentalist takeover in the early 90′s. So my thoughts are still a tad muddled at the time, and something I’m working through…

I’ve not been a “career missionary”, my experience is limited to two years on the West Bank with the SBC, a long time ago, and more recently a number of week long experiences in several countries, not with the SBC. I saw both culturally sensitive and clueless missionaries. The worst examples of cultural blindness I’ve personally seen have come from aggressive American parachurch organizations.
Isn’t some of this cultural colonialism inevitable? St. Paul traveled Roman roads and applied Jewish religious forms to the new Christian synagogues. 19th century missionaries rode on the same ships carrying soldiers and merchants. Today we teach English as second language or increasingly use business to “travel” to another culture.
I have Indian friends, great Christian leaders of massive movements, who frankly have told me “we don’t need your missionaries, we don’t need your PhD’s, we have both of those here and they’re Indians. We do need your resources. Your wealth and experience. We need partnerships, not patronization.”

Thanks to Scott (6) and Corinne (9), your comments are very helpful to me. I suppose that, given the 2000 BF&M, perhaps the official prayer partner emails I receive have to play up the most “important” parts of the party line. It could be that these folks are actually more culturally sensitive than they seem.
OTOH, another thing that has surprised me is that this group of missionaries encourages regular short-term missions team visits from SBC congregations they know in the US; 5-6 a year. From what I can tell, what these short-term teams do is lead workshops on the dangers of alcohol, sexual abstinence (w/or without an AIDS emphasis), the proper structure of the family and so on. There is a particular emphasis on changing the nature of the many polygamous families once conversion takes place.
This is all food for thought for me.

Asian Cheng,
Great insights! Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Reading the traditional characters themselves can be easier once you figure out the basic patterns (for the most part), but you still have the grammar differences (especially from things published in Taiwan). The more that can be published in simplified characters and mainland grammar the better for reaching the less educated areas of the mainland.
Eleanor,
I’d rather share this over e-mail instead of at this post, but here ya go:
There are different levels within the IMB structure that define what we are able to do. At the top level is our personal beliefs. You never actually have to “sign” the BF&M, but your beliefs must be “in line” with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. We are required to write out doctrinal statements concerning our personal beliefs on various topics (Trinity, Ecclesiology, etc.), and then the statements are taken before the trustees. For instance, I disagreed with the BF&M sections on women leadership, and was able to write out my biblical defense of why I disagreed. Then I discussed my position with my representative (the person who takes the issue before the trustees), and the trustees decided that my contrary position did not disqualify me from missionary service with the IMB.
It seems controlling, but in their defense, they have to make sure that SBC missionaries represent everyone from Joe Blow megachurch member to the little old lady giving 65% of her Social Security check to missions. I know of people who have disagreed with other parts of the BF&M and been approved to continue with the board after sharing a biblical defense. There have also been some who went over the line and weren’t allowed to continue, but these were usually extreme differences due to beliefs that the vast majority of SBC churches do not hold.
The next level is churches that we plant. We have a set of guidelines from the trustees, but the guidelines are very ambiguous and would be applicable to any Nicene church with the exception of a few Baptist distinctives such as the Baptist view on the Lord’s Supper (symbolic) and believer’s Baptism.
The next level is partnership with non-SBC church planting projects. We are allowed to fully partner with non-SBC church planters in their projects as long as the churches do not compromise Christian orthodoxy. In fact, I’m required to have non-SBC partners in my area so that we can partner in prayer and strategy for reaching the area.
I hope that helps answer your questions.