For nearly any task, there's often more than one way to accomplish it. World missions is another task that also has more than one way to do it. Although I'm sure there are more than two, here are two major themes of world missions work.
Traditional World Missions
This is the theme of worlds missions work that you are probably most familiar with if you have spent any significant time in the church in America. In this model, ministers and professionals are sent around the world to carry out world evangelism. What they do overseas varies widely by the missionary, because there are many different roles that need filled, but their overall purpose is the expand the Kingdom of God in other countries.
Pros: They often have access to top education and resources; they are backed by their home currency, which is sometimes quite strong in their country of ministry; they are backed by their home church, which can be a great source of finances, teams, and prayer; those who become missionaries usually have a unique call of God on their life to do be in missions in a specific country.
Cons: Occasionally their home currency is quite weak when converted to foreign currencies; missionaries need to learn a new language and culture, which delays their ministry by over a year; they are far from their family, home, and church; they are often unable to get jobs if finances are tight; they have to cover the large expenses of travelling internationally.
Empowered National Missionaries
This theme of world missions has been made famous by Gospel for Asia--a missions organization that has been very effective in empowering Indians to reach India. The main premise of this concept is that Christians will be most effective at reaching people in their own country and culture. Instead of sending a missionary to a faraway country, empowered national missionaries are ministers who travel to different parts of their own country to do missions work. In some cases, such as in Latin America, these national missionaries may also go to a nearby country with similar dialects and culture.
Pros: The national missionary is immediately able to begin evangelism in their new home without language or culture training; with international partnerships, they are often backed financially by stronger currencies (for example, Gospel for Asia receives a lot of its financing from America); they do not need to cover the enormous international travel costs; they are closer to family and their home; if funds are tight they won't need any special permits to get a local job.
In Gospel of Asia, for example, their missionaries only need a few hundred dollars a month; whereas, an American missionary sent to India often has to raise several thousand dollars each month.
Cons: People who feel called to minister among a certain people group are discouraged to do ministry outside of their own country; in some countries, the national minister will likely face harsh persecution for abandoning their cultural religion; in some cases they will not have access to the education or resources they need; poorer countries may have a harder time sending their missionaries if they cannot find international partners.
What Do You Think?
As a church goer who occasionally is asked to give to a missionary, who would you feel more comfortable giving to? Which do you think is more effective?
