• Receiving
  [ Home ] [ Up ] [ Introduction ] [ Organizing ] [ Theology ] [ Sending ] [ Short Term ] [ Receiving ] [ Additional Materials ]

The approach to Receiving Missionaries in this handbook will be different form the "How To Do It" style of the other sections. The concept of Receiving is so radically different from the stereotypical understanding of mission that the diocese interested in this important dimension of life within the undivided Church must prepare in a special way. Basic to Receiving is the understanding that God comes to us through others, even those we have traditionally thought of as needing us - western Christians - to teach them the Gospel.

The materials that follow were prepared for workshops at GEM Educational Institutes. They can be adapted or used as a diocese chooses. They will help prepare for the experience of welcoming the witness of persons from another culture who come into a parish and a diocese. This will include those invited for a formal role in the diocese, those who have been sent by their bishop for education or special ministry, professionals who move from one country to another, refugees, and yes, even undocumented immigrants. Can Christ speak to you thorough others?

The task and process of inviting and receiving a mission partner from anywhere is not as easy as it sounds. On one hand, there is that part of us that really understands (or seems to understand) the essence of receiving a stranger, the hospitality that is needed, the mindset that whoever we are receiving could have new innovations, experience and sometimes expertise to bring and share with us. On the other hand there is that aspect of us, deep within, that looks forward to the art of receiving with anxiety and fear. We are not really sure what we are getting into, how well such a person will fit into our lifestyle, and thus, understand to do things the way we do them, and/or how we want the person to do them.

Here we’ll examine:

• The art of receiving a mission partner, looking at many aspects of receiving - the theological, cultural, political, and physical, and the implications.
• General suggestions on areas that must be dealt with and clarified to enable a meaningful reception of mission partners.
• The possible educational components that must be addressed to foster meaningful receiving, namely:
  - Theology of Mission
  - Spirituality
  - Christ and Culture

The essence of this section is not to give solutions, but rather to act as a catalyst to enable faithful and constructive discussion. Hopefully, this will lead to meaningful procedures for both the receiver and the received, thus creating the right atmosphere for furthering God’s Kingdom on earth.

It might be helpful to try to ask the question in another way, that is, what is mission and why partners? Most of us, if not all, have come to know and accept that the whole concept and ethos of mission is to send. That is, when we talk of mission, we are thinking in terms of someone who is called to be a missionary, which is to carry the message of the gospel to foreign lands. Therefore, to talk of receiving missionaries is a cause of anxiety. For, behind the whole idea of sending is also the concept that we know the Gospel; that where the missionaries are going or being sent, the people do not know the Gospel. The concept of sending, even though widened, sees somehow limited to certain professional areas  i.e. priests, doctors, nurses, teachers, and sometimes administrators (to distribute aid, manage finances). Hence, when we hear about receiving missionaries, questions pop up - What have they got to offer us? The implication being we have it all.

What makes the issues more complex is not just the concept of receiving missionaries, but receiving them as partners in mission. Partners as a word obviously denotes equals, hence anxieties are up. Can someone who comes from an area we feel needs help, come instead as partners to help us? What do they know and have to share? How do we treat someone who is a partner in mission...someone, who might claim and/or seems to have a different approach and handle on the Gospel?

As if these complex issues are not enough, there are other areas to be considered when receiving mission partners, such as how many types of visitations are we talking about? There is a whole gamut here. The art of receiving does not simply imply that we only receive such persons we invite and/or call but widens to include any Christians who might have an occasion to be amongst us either by choice or force. To be open to the whole ethos of receiving mission partners is to be open to receiving any Christian brother or sister who might be worshipping with us, or might be in our area, neighborhood, community for any period of time for any reason at all. Such types of visits could be:

• A short holiday
• A visit for a conference, work or study
• A specified term - a year or two or three
• A long-term or permanent residence
• A visit for sabbatical study
• Asylum or resettlement for those who are here by force - i.e. who had no choice but to flee for their lives as refugees.

Each of these types of visitations has unique implications and complexities. Even though the common denominator is the fact that they are visits by Christians who are interested in sharing their Christian beliefs and mission with others, the issues are how do we welcome them, harness and make use of their expertise and experiences? How do we authenticate their stories, their background and experiences? How do we know what they want? What should we offer them and how? How do we share their gifts with others at large?

To be able to answer those questions meaningfully and objectively, we have to look at other implications involved in the whole area of receiving partners. There are four issues:

• Theological
• Cultural
• Governmental and Official
• Other Factors

There is a sense in which our theological view and sense of mission is still based and attached to the colonial era. That is, the sense in which we are the only ones with the depository of the truth of the Gospel, hence we are the ones who can convert others. All nations, people who are not part of us, must be taught to accept Christ, but also they must accept such Christian teachings on our terms, and in our own way. SO the art of mission for most of us is not confined to just preaching and teaching the Gospel, not just sharing, but also involves taking our culture, habits and economic standards to these areas and peoples. If this is the common concept of the theology of mission, then to talk of receiving mission partners raises anxiety and complexity about the theology of missions that will serve us well for receiving mission partners.

Every country and people has its own culture. Hence, most of us tend to see our religion within the context of our culture. For some of us, the line between culture and our religion is very fuzzy. Most of us, therefore, expect that whoever shares our religion and/or faith also have to accept our culture and the way we do things. Is there anything wrong with this concept? Not totally, except that it creates anxieties and implications when we send missionaries out to other places. The implication is that the only way to see Christ is through our culture and not the culture of the recipient. It also connotes the idea that our culture is better than the other is. When we think of receiving a mission partner, the implications are the same and even more intensified. Must they change their culture so as to be able to impact their mission to us, or could there be a way of being authentic to their culture and still be able to share their mission within the culture here? This could open the door to learning from each other’s cultures. Reality, however, still expects certain cultural expectations from those that we receive. How do we get beyond this? Or do we?

Any political aspect of an issue is complex, hence the political complexities of receiving a mission partner are not exempt. It is a known fact that the USA offers one of the best opportunities for human beings, therefore making the desire to come and live in the USA a wish of many people all over the world. What any reasonable government should do is have an adequate and objective immigration policy that deals justly with the wishes of those with immigrating intentions. The just question is what are the political implications for receiving a mission partner? How does one convince the Department of Immigration and Naturalization that such a person has the necessary skills, qualifications and experience that we need? Sometimes, it is easy to do that, but other times the process becomes cumbersome. How does one satisfy the conditions and requirements of the Department of Immigration and Naturalization without allowing them to frustrate the whole ethos of mission - sharing the Gospel as sharing gifts God has given each of us? How does one overcome the genuine concerns of immigration law i.e. protecting jobs in the country for citizens? How does one deal with the fact that it is easier for a white missionary to be allowed in and welcomed, than a black one - especially from Africa? How does one deal with restrictions that are put on some of the black ones when they do allow them in?

The physical aspect seems to be the least problematic, in one sense. But, on the other hand, it has its own implications, too. Physical aspects of receiving a mission partner have to do with the nitty-gritty of handling the person. What kind of accommodations are required, what kind of transportation, food, hospitality, schedules, and remuneration, etc.?

In what capacity does one receive the mission partner - is it as a guest while they are with us, and/or as part of us? Three is a difference. Guests are really not expected to be on their feet. yet, if they are a part of us, there is a sense in which we allow them - once given the welcome - to steer their own course of life as they wish. As guest, there is the sense in which we try to please them, whereas a part of us wants to be helpful when such help is asked for. The whole question of what constitutes comfort for one person may not be for the other, hence who decodes the level of comfort for a mission partner?

Frequently there is no advance arrangement but a fellow Anglican simply arrives in a congregation one morning having moved to the community. This may be a professional who has found employment, a refugee, or an undocumented alien. Whenever possible the witness and ministry of that person within the congregation and the diocese will be enhanced if some form of communication is established with the home church. When a bishop in India commends a medical doctor to a bishop in the United States, even though the move was motivated for professional reasons there is a rich opportunity to see this person as a missionary sent and received.

A meaningful process of receiving mission partners has to redefine and clarify the theological, cultural, political and physical aspects of the endeavor. The better clarification and understanding, regarding these aspects, the better the results the process will achieve.

The issue of orientation is twofold:

(1) for the person coming, before they get here; and

(2) for those receiving, before they receive.

Orientation for the person coming affords the opportunity of knowing what to expect in the place one is going to. It should include an overview of the culture and its differences, what may be acceptable and what may not, the perceptions of the hosting community, and a clarification of what Missionary Partnership is all about and what it involves. The question is, who does this orientation, and how feasible is it to expect that everyone coming will have the opportunity to have such an orientation?

Orientation for people receiving is also very important, to have clarification of what Missionary Partnership is all about, what to expect, and understanding of some of the cultural differences, and a clear understanding of the parameters of the partnership and what it entails - how long, any specific agenda, housing, remuneration, etc., our understanding of what hospitality means here and where the person is coming from. The questions are, therefore. Who is going to do this? IS there a sense in which this should be centralized and customized so that one is sure there are equal standards for all? Or, is this going to be seen as another exercise to be done and, therefore, not important?

Mission partners from another culture may become part of our diocesan or congregational life for a variety of reasons. An American bishop may actually work out a permanent Call for a priest from another country to come and serve. Courtesy dictates that his is done in collaboration with the priest’s bishop who has every reason to consider this as Sending a missionary abroad.

Sometimes it is a matter of inviting a lay or clergy person from a Companion Diocese to com and share life and witness with a diocese in the States. This may be in relationship with a study program or as a special missioner within the diocese once again the Sending Bishop is involved in the agreement covenant or contract.

Please send any comments about this website to the site deacon, Jim Heathcote  or telephone GEM Network President, the Rev. Bill Wood at (207) 276-5588 (williamjwood@hotmail.com) with questions or comments.

Last modified: January 12, 2008