Lesson from a Sri Lankan pastor

While working on my master’s degree at Wheaton College, I took a course on relief and development. I had previously served in Japan and planned to be involved in church planting upon my return, and honestly I thought the course was irrelevant. I did the work but didn’t pay much attention. Then, following the March 11, 2011 disaster in Tohoku, my wife and I moved to Miyagi Prefecture to do relief and development work alongside a Japanese church. I quickly contacted Dr. Campbell at Wheaton, apologized for not taking her course as seriously as I should have, and asked for a list of resources she thought would be helpful in our situation.

This article is the fourth in a series on missiology, specifically looking at models where the missionary is forgotten in the process of what God is doing. It’s inspired by Dr. Patrick Fung’s book Live to be Forgotten. I have observed many missiological similarities between relief and development to church planting and evangelism efforts. One of these common points is the role a missionary plays in the situation.

Three kinds of responders

Following the Tohoku disaster, a group of Japanese pastors had the opportunity to travel to Sri Lanka and learn from the experience of the Sri Lankan church following the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. On the tour, Sri Lankan pastor Adrian De Visser shared his observations of three types of people who respond to a disaster:

1. Local people who have a dual identity of both victim and responder.
2. Outside people with a previous connection to the area (friends or family in the region, previously lived there, etc.).
3. People with little or no previous connection to the area.

Rev. De Visser’s point was that because type 3 tends to have more time, resources, and is less directly impacted by the event itself, they tend to dominate the discussion on how the response to the disaster should occur. However, type 1, the local person, with a dual identity as both responder and victim, has the best understanding of the situation but often has the least time and resources. Type 3 does not necessarily intend to take over, but there are natural pressures, tensions, and realities that push the dynamic in this direction. How then does a response happen where type 3 does not dominate and each type can operate in their strengths? Before examining the missiological implications, I would like to take a moment to elaborate on each type.

Type 1: Dual identity

In 2014, I had a conversation with a pastor from the Tohoku coast who had been both directly impacted by the disaster and deeply involved in the response. During our conversation, he shared about the tension between trying to respond to the tremendous need around him while simultaneously grieving his personal losses associated with the tragedy. In many ways, it reminded me of Bilbo Baggins from The Fellowship of the Ring when he said, “I feel thin, sort of stretched . . . like butter that has been scraped over too much bread.”¹ I think this image would resonate with several of my Japanese friends in Tohoku. Most of them lost a friend or family member in the disaster and suffered some level of emotional trauma and physical loss. At the same time, because they were Japanese Christians in the area with some overseas connections, there was significant pressure to be the gatekeepers, organizers, and leaders for outside groups with a variety of agendas and expectations. They deeply desired to respond but had limited capacity.

Question: How can someone with the most experience and connections in an area, a desire to respond, the deepest pain associated with the event, and yet the least capacity stay central in the decision-making process for the overall response?

Type 2: In the middle

The type 2 responder is a fuzzier role. They are neither fully insiders nor outsiders. I experienced this role following the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. From 2005 to 2009, I served in northern Kagoshima and southern Kumamoto. Seven years after leaving Kyushu, a major earthquake struck near Kumamoto City, and our organization discerned that God was leading us to be part of the response. Because of my experience in the area and relationships with several churches, pastors, and leaders, my organization asked me to help lead this response. I am thankful I was able to help, but it was also really hard. I found myself engaging with churches that knew me when I was younger; they trusted me, but saw me as somewhat of an outsider. Younger missionaries feared I might be more committed to the local churches impacted by the earthquake than I was to them. Sometimes my knowledge and experience were helpful, but other times my assumptions and past experiences clouded the decision-making process.

Question: How can someone from the outside, with previous relationships and experience, help type 1 and type 3 responders serve well together?

Type 3: From the outside

Type 3 people have time, resources, and an outside perspective. They are often well-meaning, trained, and ready to respond to immediate needs. They also provide an outside perspective, which sometimes is problematic but often helps to illuminate blind spots. At the same time, finances in particular can quickly become the dominant force in decision-making. During the pandemic, a church that usually sends a team wanted to send a gift to support a specific kind of event or outreach since they couldn’t come. The Japanese pastor was torn; he appreciated their kindness and wanted to do outreach, but what the church really needed was an air conditioner in the children’s building. The kind offer of funds was pushing the church to create busyness and events that were not a priority and that it didn’t have the capacity for. I recommended he ask if the funds could be used for the AC, and they were happy to help. The overseas church had wanted to help and put out an idea, not realizing the pressure it would put on the Japanese church. Another example that is a bit more awkward to discuss but relevant is that many missionaries have considerably more financial freedom than the pastors we work with. Christian leadership is not about salary, but it is complex for a Japanese pastor to lead a missionary who they don’t pay and who makes more than they do.

Question: How can someone with more time, resources, and a different perspective than the people they are attempting to help offer what they have in a way that does not dominate the decision-making process?

Type 3 as “alongside-ers”

Those of us in cross-cultural missions often identify and are identified as outsiders. But it is important to come alongside what God and the local church are already doing and be additive. If we are in a type 3 role, we need to avoid dominating a context or process unintentionally (or intentionally) due to our availability, resources, and perspective.

Type 2 as bridges

This brings me back to type 2, which is positioned in the liminal space between the insider and the outsider. In the Japanese church, there are many people who occupy this ambiguous position. Some are Japanese people who have lived overseas, and others are expats with extensive time and experience in Japan. They are sometimes accepted as honorary insiders in their local and long-term contexts while remaining outsiders to most people. They are also often not fully accepted by either side. To the Japanese person, they are still a foreigner, and to the new missionary, they have been in Japan too long to understand a newcomer’s experience. These people are often best positioned to bridge the gap. They can advocate for the voices of both type 1 and type 3 to be heard in a conversation. They have the chance to be a strong ligament within the body of Christ.

In closing, I have a few questions for reflection. If you find yourself in the situation below, how can you respond?

• Type 1: How can I help the well-meaning outsiders understand the situation, learn from their perspective, and work together to respond to the need?
• Type 2: How can I come between type 1 and type 3 responders and help them to work well together?
• Type 3: How can I listen to type 1 and type 2 responders and offer the time, resources, and perspective freely so that we can work well together?

When all three types work together, it creates an environment where the church is united and can powerfully respond to felt and spiritual needs. Each person and group disappears as a piece of the body, fulfilling its role faithfully under the leadership of Christ and allowing him to receive credit and glory. We can “live to be forgotten in order that Christ might be remembered.”²

1. J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring: The Lord of the Rings, Part 1 (HarperCollins, 1997), 32.
2. Patrick Fung, Live to be Forgotten (OMF International, 2008), foreword, Kindle.