Missionary or Activist
A good friend of mine and I were talking the other day and he began telling me about his daughter’s struggle with the tension of feeling compelled, on the one hand, to become a missionary, while feeling compelled on the other hand to become an activist. I was struck by my friend’s very economic and practical response. “Well,” He replied, “I told her she can’t have both. She’ll need to choose and there are trade offs with either choice; not good or bad necessarily, just different and not both. Become a missionary, help individuals or small groups of individuals cope with the culture and political system around them or become an activist, change the culture and political system itself, help everyone.”
It seems to me, people generally tend to respond with a positive reaction to one way and a tempered or even negative reaction the other way. To the degree it is possible to navigate both, it seems improbable, if not imprudent to prioritize both. It is OK to prioritize one way or the other but it cannot be both. Not only does each way require a particular temperament for one to begin, each way also produces a particular temperament one becomes. Navigating both is a very difficult task.
Being a missionary may be viewed as a peace-making role, which tends to be taught and modeled to others with the intention of becoming peace-makers themselves. This is because at the heart service is abiding in Jesus Christ, which is to say, being like Jesus Christ toward others. Now generally speaking, despite the disagreements which come with what loving others looks like, it at least looks similar to what we read of Jesus loving others. Similarly, Jesus’ interactions with others does not seem to come across as controlling or manipulative or vitriol toward others. Jesus was kind, patient, oriented toward serving others. My assumption is he always told the truth and to those outside the church he tended to be suggestive rather than judgmental, leaving his harsher and certainly judgmental conclusions for those who claimed to know God. (NB: This is something many Christians get wrong today, read I Corinthians 5:12 and its surrounding context.)
I think it is fair to say Jesus did not control others or make others do things against their will. He provided safe haven, even to those who would bring him harm. He seemed always to allow others to be themselves. Ultimately, he trusted the outcomes to God, because he new God was involved in how things would turn out for him and he knew God had good things for him. For all the difficulties that arise when serving others, living this way cultivates a character and disposition of a certain sort. Interacting with one who has embraced fully this way of life can be a pleasant, calm and peaceful experience. Accepting outcomes, encouraging and modeling changes.
Being an activist, as the label implies, may look more active. This may be viewed as more controlling or possibly manipulative. Possibly one is more open to bringing about an outcome rather that being content to allow outcomes to evolve organically. This could look like a more frantic life, moving around from campaign to campaign, even from one office to the next. An activist works busily to bring about new policies, get an up and coming political candidates elected or placing phone calls or working the halls of the capital, lobbying politicians with a new point of view. At times activists require gaining access to politicians via their gate-keeping secretaries. In any case, though not all cases, an activist tends to develop the sort of personality and disposition to make something happen. Creating outcomes, advocating on behalf of others.
Which one are you? One or the other or both? Perhaps you have your own thoughts to share?
