Why Do We Serve Outside the US?

Many friends and family have asked me why does Word Made Flesh (WMF) not serve in the US? Sometimes the question is asked innocently; sometimes there seems to be a hint of accusation in the question. But I'm glad for it either way.

The question itself has many locus points: theology, philosophy, efficacy, efficiency, etc. that I hope to cover below.

In the beginning of WMF, we were blessed by Chris Heuertz's probing, sincere questions to influential missional and theological leaders and he received great advice, including from Ps. Samuel Kamaleson. When asked about the dangers inherent to organizations, Ps. Samuel Kamaleson replied that broadening the scope of your mission and its mission statement would be a real danger for WMF.

Over the years there have been many "dangers" for expanding our original mission: expanding into rural areas, expanding with ministries in the States, expanding in social welfare areas, etc.

Our vision statement starts as follows: Word Made Flesh is called and committed to serving Jesus among the poorest of the poor. This calling is realized as a prophetic ministry for, and a holistic, incarnational ministry among, the world's poor. We focus our energy to make Jesus known among the poor while reconciling the Church with the poor.

Inherent in our other WMF missional statements was a focus on what is now called the majority world (previously called third-world and expanded to two-thirds world). The change in language was important because a person can assume that the rest of the world lives in the same manner that he/she personally lives...with all the privileges that entails. Third-world sounds removed, two-thirds world is more accurate but hard to explain. Majority world sets the context that the rest of the world does not live like people in the US or Western Europe, etc. in terms of scarcity, provisions, or consumption.

Please see Adam Thada's blog and his 06 February 2008 post entitled "Global Food per week):
http://athada.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-03-15T12%3A43%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=10

Philosophy:

Conservatives have adopted a beautiful term entitled 'subsidiarity', which according to Wikipedia means: "matters ought to be handled by the smallest (or, the lowest) competent authority". What this often means is that if someone is struggling physically, spiritually, financially, etc. the first ones intervening should be that person's family and/or friends, then a local church or other non-profit, and the concentric circles can get larger to involve county aid, state aid, federal aid, UN aid, etc.

And I love the concept of subsidiarity except that it doesn't take into accounts the pockets of poverty that exist around the world; mainly financial pockets of poverty where few funds seems to enter. Think about the favelas or slum communities you've seen on t.v. or experienced. How does family aid make a difference in these situations? How was this situation created in the first place that so isolates people?

There are more opportunities in places like the US and Western Europe for escaping poverty; there is access to credit, access to health-care, housing, foodstuffs, etc. These are luxuries for many overseas.

Theology:

Why do WMF staff travel overseas to serve Jesus? Why isn't this being done by WMF in Omaha since it has an administrative office here?

WMF staff who work in the office do cultivate relationships with those who are vulnerable here, but this remains outside the scope of WMF as an organization.

WMF staff travel the world because Scripture is missional; the Good News is for the whole world. Our neighbor is redefined in Scripture: Scripture clearly says that our neighbor is everyone. When we try to limit who we are responsible for, we are brought back to a Godly understanding of the connectedness of humanity.

What do we see heaven looking like? We are told that in heaven, every nation, tribe, and tongue will be represented. And we (WMF) want to be part of communities like that on earth.

We know in WMF that when there are just 2 cultures together, there can often develop a competitive relationship. Approaches to life, benefits, outlook, problem-solving, and priorities can all be set against each other. When a 3rd culture is introduced, this somehow defuses some of the competition. What we love and what we want more of is for each community to look a little bit more like heaven....for there to a number of cultures together (even in our office in the States).

For Peruvians to minister in Bolivia, for Indians to minister in Romania, etc. This is what the Kingdom looks like.

Efficiency:

There is truth in the assertion that WMF staff traveling overseas is inefficient. Much more efficient would be to mobilize resources and just send those funds overseas. Equipping local Christians financially to carry out the Church's mission there.

And we (maybe I should just say I) are/am shamed by our own when traveling overseas because we see Christians living there who are intercessory pray-ers, overjoyed in worship, Biblically lamenting in their sorrow, and dedicated in service. However, the Church worldwide has often distanced itself from those who are suffering. We hope that in going....we will spark a worldwide renewal in understanding God's clear heart for the most vulnerable of our world.

As WMF staff, we are trying to live incarnationally because this is important for us. This transforms us. We follow Jesus' example in that He came to Earth and live in an earthly body with all its confinements (hunger, skin, age). More than that, He was born in an animal stall, in a persecuted land, did not pursue an earthly kingdom, made friends with the outcast of society, and died the death of a criminal. He did not live like an earthly king but lived in a human body in the harsh conditions that most of humanity faced. To me, this made His ministry more real.

This is the other important component of our service....that we are transformed in this process: we see that we are not the ones giving and others receiving. It is a reciprocal relationship. We receive as much as we give.

WMF is inefficient in this way, but we hope that it is inefficient in the same way that long dinners with family and friends around the table are inefficient.

As the US seems to be struggling financially, with the dollar falling and gas prices going up considerably, the previous advantages our staff have had in making their dollars stretch are evaporating. It will be interesting to see how this affects WMF in the future.

An interesting question for another post:
What if the US loses its place as one of the richest in the world? Or what if other countries (like Romania or India) grow so wealthy that they are seen as competition to the average American? I think that WMF would still want its presence in these countries, but its possible that some people would stop giving because of the perception that this is no longer 'charity' (a term that we are trying desperately to get away from because it defines a one-way relationship). Maybe WMF would establish a local ministry in the States if people were being left behind in a systemic way.

Efficacy:

In WMF literature, we have said that nationals (even that language will be changed in the future because it overidentifies someone's identity with that persons' nation-state) "have the greatest opportunity for the intense identification necessary for on-going transformation among the urban poor."

Why, as the question was asked earlier, does WMF not just equip local believers? And WMF does have communities with just local believers but it is hard to measure whether these communities are more "effective" than our communities which involve several cultures.

Is WMF actually doing what it hopes to accomplish? We talk a lot about being (being the people God has us to be) and less about doing. Relationships matter most and programs are designed to meet the whole person's needs (spiritual, job training, education, hunger, counseling).

All we can do is continue to ask those whom we serve if we are meeting their needs and how we can do better with the same amount of resources.