美國作為世界的領導者會失去其優勢和使命嗎?

1.美國人討厭失去任何東西。無論是一個球的游戲,還是在股票市場的投資,甚至是一個案件或選舉,他們的競爭精神自幼時起就已經根深蒂固在每個人的心中。當涉及到全球范圍的競爭時，在經濟、知識、文化和軍事領域,美國人相信主導的力量，并且一刻都不會休息,他們相信自己的國家仍然是超級大國。美國是專制的國家,他們相信我們是世界上僅存的最好的國家。

2.基督徒是受制于當今這個競爭激烈的社會的,心懷種族思想但是還沉浸這個社會環境中。難怪,美國教會已經在全球被當作主導地位的一種精神。在某些情況下,美國教會的使命的動機已經很低了。事實上,有一些文化是必勝主義的,如今已經和西方的優越感或知識融為一體。

3.這種心態的大部分原因是因為他們贏得最后一個偉大的戰爭以來獲得的歷史地位。在過去的50年里,美國的軍事實力和商業文化主宰世界,美國教會是用來主宰世界的。當然,歐洲的任務也會繼續存在和發揮影響。然而,通過純粹的數字的力量,美國在全球傳教任務所采取的是一種優越的地方企業的方式。他們派遣了更多的傳教士,花了更多的錢,提供了更多的祈禱,開發了更多的項目,利用更多的技術,打開更多的人脈和組織，這比任何一代的福音信徒在教會中的任務發揮著更大的力量!

4. 在世俗的世界里,裝模做樣的那些人都是在競爭頂部上游的人。一旦獲得有利的位置就會榨取了其所有的物質利益。所有的努力都是保持和維護自己的利益。而信用，美國教會不能持有最高位置的任務。相反,自我放棄一直是就是一般規則。

 

Is America Losing Its Edge as a Leader in Missions?

 

Americans hate to lose anything. Whether it be a ball game, money in the  stock market, a court case or an election, our competitive spirit, ingrained  in each of us from childhood, pushes us to want not only to excel but to  dominate. When it comes to the global sphere, we are even more intent. In the  economic, intellectual, cultural and military realms, Americans have not only  striven to dominate but have not rested content until finding ourselves as  the last remaining superpower. We are a domineering-centered nation,  believing that our ways are the best—not only for us but also for the rest of  the world.  

 

 We evangelical Christians are conditioned by this competitive, ethno-centric  environment in which we are immersed. It is no wonder, then, that the  American church has taken upon itself a spirit of global dominance. In some  instances, American churches’ motivations for mission have been less than  pure. Indeed, some have been characterized by cultural triumphalism and a  sense of technological or intellectual Western superiority.   

 

 Much of this mindset is an outworking of our place in history since winning  the last Great War. Over the past 50 years, just as American military might  and commercial culture have come to dominate the globe, the American church  has come to dominate the world of missions. Granted, European missions  continue to exist and make their impact. However, by sheer strength of  numbers, American missions has taken a superior place in the global  missionary enterprise. We have sent more missionaries, spent more money,  offered more prayers, developed more programs, utilized more technology, and  opened more people groups to the gospel than any previous generation of  believers in the history of the Church!   

 

 In the secular world, a feeling of smugness comes over those who find  themselves at the top of the competition pile. Once gained, the position of  favor is something to be held for as long as possible and milked for all the  material benefits it can give. All efforts are expended to remain in control.  But not so in God’s economy, especially when it comes to doing what is  closest to His heart—winning a lost world to Himself. To its credit, the  major part of the American church has not been stingy by selfishly holding on  to its supreme position in missions. Rather, a self-imposed kenosis has been  the general rule.   

 

 Most missionaries have been self-emptying and even self-abasing as they have  succeeded in establishing mission-sending churches in all parts of the globe.  To be sure, some have been slower than others and some have hung on longer  than they should have, but generally a spirit of release of control has been  true of what I have observed around the world of missions in recent years.  Even if this were not the case, current world trends and changing global  realities would force us to reposition ourselves in an alternate mission  role.  

 

 as we quickly approach the end of the century and turn a major chapter in  mission history, we face several trends while we lose our singular edge as  the world leader in missions.   

 

Just 30 years ago the world-wide evangelical church was predominately “white,  rich and West.” Its center of gravity was in the developed North Atlantic  countries which we have come to call the “first world.” But as we enter the  21st century, the church looks much different. It is now composed of peoples  who are predominately “of color, poor and South.” What’s more, the global  church today has no center of gravity at all. Rather than one major center of  influence, the church has become polycentric and largely non-western. The  majority of its members are found in those under-developed countries which  lie south of North America and Europe that have come to be called the  “two-thirds world.”  What has caused this major shift in the makeup of the global evangelical  church? It has not necessarily been a decrease in church members in the  evangelical churches of North America and Europe. These churches have  actually grown during this period. Rather, this dramatic shift is attributed  to the explosive growth of the church all over the wide span of the  two-thirds world.   

 

 It is remarkable how the makeup of the Church has changed from being nearly  60 percent western in 1960 to a diminished 30 percent in 1998, caused by  unabated church growth across the two-thir
ds world. Today we are hard pressed  to find a country where the Church is not found. It is indeed global.   

 

Not only has the Church finally become fully global after two millenniums,  but it has also become globalized. (By globalization ,it is meant that the  worldwide Church is becoming increasingly interdependent.)   

 

 The cross-cultural sharing of resources, ideas, personnel and spiritual life  is causing the Church to become more and more interconnected. In this  ever-increasing globalized age, the American church can ill afford to stand  alone, or in a position of superiority. The parochialism and isolationism of  our past is being shed and giving way to increased international  partnerships.   

 

One-time competitors in the work are now collaborators in ministry. These  partnerships are being realized in several notable ways: American local  churches directly adopting sister churches overseas, American missions  working with and even under overseas national churches, and formal  partnerships between American mission agencies with two-thirds world and  European mission agencies. It’s an inter-active church after all!  

 

Corresponding with the worldwide growth of the church has been an increasing  participation of that global Church to engage itself in mission. It, too, is  reaching out across cultural and linguistical boundaries, bringing lost  peoples to faith in Christ. Two-thirds world missionaries and Christian  professionals are flooding the ranks of the global mission force. Recently I  attended a China strategy meeting in Bangkok that demonstrated this  phenomenon. Among this international group of 15 members, seven different  nationalities were represented: Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Filipino, Taiwanese,  Korean, and American. Another example indicative of this trend is the  missionary force with the mission TEAM in Macao, of which I had oversight  until recently. That small but effective team is comprised of eight  missionaries who originate from four different countries: America, Taiwan,  Thailand, and Malaysia. International missionary teams such as these are  becoming more and more the norm.  

 

 Around the globe today there are approximately 140,000 Protestant  cross-cultural missionaries. One-third of this modern missionary force now  comes from the two-thirds world. This changing makeup of the missionary force  can mainly be attributed to an increase of two-thirds world missions.  However, it should be noted that the number of long-term North American  missionaries has decreased as well. Robertson McQuilkin reminds us that in  this decade alone there has been a decline of about 20 percent (from 50,000  to 40,000) of long-term or career missionaries. Some of that slack is being  made up by an increase in short-term and church-based missionaries.   

 

Technological advances in communications and transportation have shrunk the  world in which we live. The once formidable barriers of time and distance are  less and less a hindrance to missions. Technology has made our globe a  man-managed workplace and recreational playground. A quick flight can jet  one to the other side of the world in less than half a day. A keystroke on a  computer can access information in any corner of the world in a matter of   seconds. Where once we talked about going somewhere distant by crossing an  ocean, we now refer to a half day’s trip to Asia or Africa as “crossing the  pond.” International borders have become so porous and unprotected, that they  can hardly be considered boundaries at all. Cyberspace, with no regard for  borders, taxes and tariffs, has destroyed geography as we once knew it.  Consequently the Christian mission, riding on the coattails of modern  technology, is being done more quickly, in more places, and with more variety  of methods than in any other time in history.   

 

Over a decade ago Marshall McLuhan, who saw our world as increasingly small  and ever shrinking, optimistically labeled it a “global village”—a community  where no inhabitant was far from another and where harmony might prevail.  Time, however, has revealed that bringing the world closer by technology did  not, in fact, bring it together in a corresponding spirit of harmony. Rather,  counter trends have made this an increasingly dangerous and volatile world.  Thus a search for a more accurate metaphor is needed. 

 

 Given the dual phenomenon of people feeling technologically closer on the one  hand, yet increasingly hostile on the other, a more probable description of  our world today would be to compare it to a sports stadium—a Liverpool soccer  stadium to be most exact. While the two teams (good vs. evil) compete on the  field, the stands are brimming over with unruly and hostile fans. Not only  are they intent on jeering the fans on the other side of the field, but they  also periodically break out in verbal assault and violence toward the fans  around them in increasingly dangerous bedlam. This is the kind of world into  which we now send our missionaries.  

 

 Physical danger and threat to life loom  in most of the least-reached and unreached parts of the world where we do  mission. Is it any wonder that today’s missionaries think twice before  committing themselves long term to these volatile areas?   

 

In this present milieu in which the American church finds itself, can it be  that, in fact, it is losing its edge as a leader in mission? The answer to  that question depends on what is meant by “edge.” If it refers to a numerical  edge as in a percentage of long-term missionaries now being sent, then yes,  we are losing an edge. If “edge” means a decrease in ecclesiastical global  influence, then again we must answer in the affirmative. But rather than  being concerned or disheartened by these trends, we should take heart and be  encouraged! After 50 years of being positioned as the front runner in  missions, global circumstances are now allowing us to relinquish that  position. With the emergence of two-thirds world missions, the task is  becoming more evenly distributed across the wide span of the global Church.  What’s more, one of the fundamental premises of missions—that of establishing  reproducing mission-minded churches —is increasingly being realized. For this  we rejoice!   

 

The greatest concern for the American evangelical church is not that it may  be losing its edge to dominate in anything related to mission—other than in  one important matter. That one thing is simply our effectiveness. God is not  requiring us to hold an edge on anything other than the edge of effectiveness  in wielding the rich resources (people, prayer, finances, technology) with  which He has entrusted us to win the world for Him.   

 

Effectiveness is defined as “producing a decided, decisive or desired effect”  (Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary). The desired effect and result which God  wants from the American church is the winning of the last remaining unreached  peoples to Him. To lose that edge is to lose God’s blessing on our missionary  endeavors. 

 

 Thus the more important question to ask is, “Are we being effectively  faithful with the resources we have?” The core issue is not how many  missionaries we send, but rather how effective are the ones we do send. It is  not an issue of how much money we allocate for missions, but rather how  effectively is that money being used in winning the remaining lost peoples to Christ.   

 

Greater effectiveness does not necessarily mean being more efficient. Sadly,  some are efficiently doing antiquated things that are no longer relevant in  today’s world. Rather, we need to constantly be asking ourselves if we are  having a greater effectiveness in achieving the ultimate goal of the Great  Commission, which is bringing the unreached, under-reached and nominally  reached peoples of the world to Christ.   

 

One of the greatest advantages the American church possesses today is  advanced technology. Although it can just as easily be a threat to the  church, if properly wielded, technology can continue to keep us on a leading  edge in mission. Advanced computer technology, cyberspace, DVD, the  multi-lingual Jesus film, cellular phones, global mapping, and the plethora  of other technology has kept us on a cutting edge in missions. However, the  stupefying danger for us Americans is to consider technology a replacement  for a strong missionary force.   

 

 It needs to be remembered that technology must be used to advance a more  effective North American missionary force, not replace it. As in every age of  missions, only by the gospel of Jesus, demonstratively incarnated in the  lives of flesh and blood witnesses active in the world, will the lost be won  for Him. The truth of Zechariah 4:6 for the American church today could be  best stated, “Not by the might of missiological methods nor by the power of  technological techniques, but by My Spirit (in the lives of ambassadors) says  the Lord of hosts.”       

 

 This morning when I got out of bed, I did what many American men do in  preparing for the day. As I stood at the bathroom sink I lathered shaving  cream on my face and proceeded to shave with my trusty razor. My hand-held  razor is more advanced than razors were 30 years ago when I first began to  shave. That first one used a stiff, wide, opposite-sided two-edged blade that  had to be alternated from one side to the other as the cutting edges became  increasingly dull. Today’s razors are much more advanced and effective.  Anyone who shaves by this method knows that a paradigm shift has taken place  in their design. Now the head has three thin, flexible blades aligned  together back-to-back in a series. These triple cutting edges working  together give a much closer and longer-lasting shave than the old model ever did.  

 

 That’s precisely what is happening in the world of missions today. Instead of  one big blade of dominant Americans along with Europeans, there are three  blades: the Americans, the Europeans, and the two-thirds world. With the new  sharp edge of the two-thirds world now set into place, all are working in a  redesigned configuration. The three are aligned in synergistic formation that  promises to promote greater efficiency for the whole.   

 

oday’s American church still maintains a vital edge in missions, but we are  not alone nor do we dominate the task. America’s edge in reaching the  remaining unreached peoples of the world will be borne out as we use our  God-given resources effectively in partnership with the other two mission  players. n  Five biggest threats to American missions that could render us ineffective:  

1. Growing belief that non-believers are not really “lost.”  

2. Growing tendency to do mission by proxy—substituting our money and  technology for flesh and blood missionaries.  

3. Increasing compassion-depleted church, especially exhausted by adjunct  concerns such as ecology, reconciliation, social justice, abortion, etc.  

4. Increasing fragmentation between churches-agencies-schools in the sending  process.  5. Slowness in moving from traditional mission models and structures to meet  new global realities.  

 

Five biggest threats to American missions that could render us ineffective: 

 

1. Growing belief that non-believers are not really “lost.” 

 

2. Growing tendency to do mission by proxy—substituting our money and technology for flesh and blood missionaries. 

 

3. Increasing compassion-depleted church, especially exhausted by adjunct concerns such as ecology, reconciliation, social justice, abortion, etc.  

 

4. Increasing fragmentation between churches-agencies-schools in the sending process.  

 

5. Slowness in moving from traditional mission models and structures to meet new global realities.