Excellent points, all. A big one for us is (#4) that Christian colleges are no longer big, natural feeders for us. Early on, a majority of our candidates were from Bible colleges or similar institutions. Now we rely on churches sending people to us directly and these tend to have more life experience. Also, the typical American is now 11 years older than in 1975. The population is aging.
Really helpful insights, thanks. I guess my question would be whether more younger workers is necessarily good. If the only aim is more workers these things hold. High numbers of young workers might have been sent in previous waves but was the work of lots of young people necessarily fruitful? Could less be more and more mature be longer lasting?
I agree that mobilizing younger people for church planting and missions is important. They have energy, adaptability, and a greater willingness to take risks on their side.
At the same time, the Scripture places a high value on maturity in church leadership. The leaders who planted and led churches were called elders. And while the primary emphasis is on spiritual maturity, it also has in view an aged, proven character with household and community leadership.
Much of the early church's church planting was led by people with established households, trades, and life experience. Paul was likely in his early 40s on his first missionary journey and well into his 50s during later church-planting efforts. Barnabas was likely older than Paul. I wonder if we also need to find new ways to mobilize older and more mature believers whose experience and resources could benefit the work of church planting.
Could it be that Father is raising up older missionaries from the US because our role in global missions needs to adapt to the times?
Responding to my surprise at hearing of 1,000 fold growth among Malays in only 3 years (after an Indonesian started planted the Gospel among Malays, compared to previous decades of westerners doing the same), the prodigious veteran missionary with whom I was speaking responded, "it's not what you're preaching; it's WHO is preaching it." He attributed the staggering growth among hitherto resistant people, in large part, to the near-culture of those bearing the message. Similar surprises are being told all around the world.
Workers from the majority world serving among their unreached "near neighbors" are not only proving to be very effective, in many cases they are proving to be far more effective than their western counterparts. And these effective majority world LEADERS are inviting westerners to partner with them, even serve under them, embracing their vision and leadership so as to accelerate the growth of the Kingdom.
To the point: the effectiveness of westerners serving such leaders often increases with age. Humble older men and women with decades of life experience have much (arguably much more) to offer than the exuberant optimism of youth.
Something that I have thought frequently about is what Jonathan Haidt describes in his book "The Anxious Generation." He describes 2012 as the tipping point when society globally shifted from the play-based childhood to the phone-based childhood. Kids growing up in the phone-based childhood saw remarkable increases in anxiety, depression, and loneliness. It was also a point where kids saw a reduction in what he calls risky play. Such as playing out of sight, climbing trees, etc. The result is that kids in a phone-based childhood lack the skills for calibrated risk. The generations born before 1995 have a more developed sense of calibrated risk. 1995... so if you are under the age of 31, you likely have a less developed risk tolerance. Mobilizing people to global missions is inherently risky. Missions recruitment is still using the same tactics that people born before 1995 respond to. But for the generation that came after, the missions community has not adapted.
One I see on a board I serve on is local church "vs" campus (I know you said both should be done...I agree). Time will tell...as you noted.
Another board is on the campus, (often leading them to Christ first) and seems to recruit great! (has strong training for support raising).
THANKS for calling out what I think are petty, straw man divisions (CMM, DMM, etc.). The Cross will not let Perspectives have a booth! I asked if I could some with Frontier Ventures, mentioned Piper's connection over the years, and they wanted me to get his specfic OK. (I didn't feel it worth bothering him!)>
Excellent points, all. A big one for us is (#4) that Christian colleges are no longer big, natural feeders for us. Early on, a majority of our candidates were from Bible colleges or similar institutions. Now we rely on churches sending people to us directly and these tend to have more life experience. Also, the typical American is now 11 years older than in 1975. The population is aging.
Really helpful insights, thanks. I guess my question would be whether more younger workers is necessarily good. If the only aim is more workers these things hold. High numbers of young workers might have been sent in previous waves but was the work of lots of young people necessarily fruitful? Could less be more and more mature be longer lasting?
I agree that mobilizing younger people for church planting and missions is important. They have energy, adaptability, and a greater willingness to take risks on their side.
At the same time, the Scripture places a high value on maturity in church leadership. The leaders who planted and led churches were called elders. And while the primary emphasis is on spiritual maturity, it also has in view an aged, proven character with household and community leadership.
Much of the early church's church planting was led by people with established households, trades, and life experience. Paul was likely in his early 40s on his first missionary journey and well into his 50s during later church-planting efforts. Barnabas was likely older than Paul. I wonder if we also need to find new ways to mobilize older and more mature believers whose experience and resources could benefit the work of church planting.
Could it be that Father is raising up older missionaries from the US because our role in global missions needs to adapt to the times?
Responding to my surprise at hearing of 1,000 fold growth among Malays in only 3 years (after an Indonesian started planted the Gospel among Malays, compared to previous decades of westerners doing the same), the prodigious veteran missionary with whom I was speaking responded, "it's not what you're preaching; it's WHO is preaching it." He attributed the staggering growth among hitherto resistant people, in large part, to the near-culture of those bearing the message. Similar surprises are being told all around the world.
Workers from the majority world serving among their unreached "near neighbors" are not only proving to be very effective, in many cases they are proving to be far more effective than their western counterparts. And these effective majority world LEADERS are inviting westerners to partner with them, even serve under them, embracing their vision and leadership so as to accelerate the growth of the Kingdom.
To the point: the effectiveness of westerners serving such leaders often increases with age. Humble older men and women with decades of life experience have much (arguably much more) to offer than the exuberant optimism of youth.
Something that I have thought frequently about is what Jonathan Haidt describes in his book "The Anxious Generation." He describes 2012 as the tipping point when society globally shifted from the play-based childhood to the phone-based childhood. Kids growing up in the phone-based childhood saw remarkable increases in anxiety, depression, and loneliness. It was also a point where kids saw a reduction in what he calls risky play. Such as playing out of sight, climbing trees, etc. The result is that kids in a phone-based childhood lack the skills for calibrated risk. The generations born before 1995 have a more developed sense of calibrated risk. 1995... so if you are under the age of 31, you likely have a less developed risk tolerance. Mobilizing people to global missions is inherently risky. Missions recruitment is still using the same tactics that people born before 1995 respond to. But for the generation that came after, the missions community has not adapted.
Superb evaluation by Ted Esler. Every one of his ten observations is important, and together these ten comprise the sending problem in the US today.
Insightful Ted.
One I see on a board I serve on is local church "vs" campus (I know you said both should be done...I agree). Time will tell...as you noted.
Another board is on the campus, (often leading them to Christ first) and seems to recruit great! (has strong training for support raising).
THANKS for calling out what I think are petty, straw man divisions (CMM, DMM, etc.). The Cross will not let Perspectives have a booth! I asked if I could some with Frontier Ventures, mentioned Piper's connection over the years, and they wanted me to get his specfic OK. (I didn't feel it worth bothering him!)>
Great word Ted.