The 5 Dysfunctions of Missions Ministries
“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” – Leo Tolstoy, AnnaKarenina
This is one of the most famous opening lines in world literature. It’s classic. Who can argue with it? Well, call me crazy, but I think Tolstoy is just plain wrong. I think happy families can look amazingly diverse, and unhappy families fall into very predictable patterns of dysfunction. Selfishness, neglect, abuse, addiction, conflict, polarization, bitterness, enmeshment, estrangement look pretty much the same all over the world, all through time. When things fall, they always fall in the same direction: down. Sin and brokenness are repetitive.
It is health, holiness, and happiness that take on remarkably creative forms of expression. While things that lead to healthy living have common traits, how they live those traits out can be endlessly diverse. When cultures are at their best, they can be vastly different. When they break down, they follow common patterns.
The same is true of missions ministries in churches. The ones that are healthy and impactful take on many forms. But bad missions ministries tend to fall into predictable patterns. In homage to Patrick Lencioni, here are five common dysfunctional models of missions ministries we see all in our church equipping ministry.
1. The Kingpin. Missions has become the private domain of a strong leader. This person has run the missions ministry so long, often with great success, and has developed such clout that what the kingpin says goes. This is a very efficient short-term strategy, but it creates endless problems over the long haul. Nothing good grows in the shade of the “big man.” This model often results in lots of nepotism and cronyism. There is probably a missions committee, but it is under the control of the kingpin. People who try to make changes may be allowed to speak, but they are ignored. If they can’t adjust to the leader, they drop out or are replaced. This model will eventually break everything good about the missions ministry. It’s bad for the church, the missionaries, the impact in the world, and the future of missions at that congregations.
2. The Silo. There is a responsible and effective missions committee in this model, but it is disconnected from the rest of the church. Often there is broken trust in the system or just a sense of neglect of missions by the rest of the leadership. Missions is a separate world. The missions ministry is not poorly aligned with the congregation’s values, it just lacks coordination and communication with the church. This results in misunderstandings and missed opportunities. Missionaries will likely feel supported by the committee but feel disconnected from the church. And they are powerless to change anything because the dysfunction has nothing to do with them. The congregational leaders feel disconnected from missions and are typically frustrated with the missions committee, who won’t “play ball” with the rest of the ministries in the church. The missions ministry is likely stable, but it will underperform and struggle to grow.
3. The Parasite. The Parasite shares all the problems of the Silo, but here the ministry is also out of alignment with the congregation that supports it. The missions committee has become an oligarchy of deeply committed lovers of mission, who have lost connection with their congregations’ mission, vision, and values and pursue their own values and vision. It isn’t just that the rest of the leadership is unaware of what is happening in missions, they resent it. It’s a struggle to fund the missions ministry. New opportunities that could excite the congregation are dismissed. Works that don’t fit nor excite the congregation are maintained. Commitment to missions wanes, and the committee blames the church for not caring about missions. They just don’t see a fit between their mission points and their congregational values.
4. The Saboteur. In addition to the Silo and Parasite problems, the missions committee has begun to work against the rest of the congregation. People within the congregation who are unhappy with the direction of their church have gravitated toward missions where they can ensure things are done in the “right” way. Over time the missions ministry becomes a cabal of opposition against the direction the congregation’s leadership is going. Missions is wielded as a lever to oppose the leadership. For example, the missions committee tries to get one of their missionaries in the pulpit to correct what the preacher has been saying. Conversely, the preacher does all he can to keep their missionaries out of the public eye because he fears it will undo much of what he’s been trying to accomplish. The missions committee and the congregational leadership are actively working against each other.
5. The Hamstrung. Here there is a missions committee of people who love missions, but they are discouraged and disempowered. They have no authority nor access to it. Other church leaders may have had a bad experience with missions, so the people with real power refuse to be involved with it. This is often the result of one or more of the other types of dysfunctions. If you don’t fix the other problems, you are likely headed to this one as the last gasp of declining missions in a church.
Why do churches allow these unhealthy models to persist?
They are asleep at the wheel. No squeak, no grease. The people who are paying attention are few and don’t speak up. Things are calm on the surface, so they coast. They treat their missionaries like the husband who says, “I told you I loved you when I married you. I’ll let you know when I change my mind.”
To make a change requires confrontation. It is easier to leave things as they are. Making any changes could result not only in conflict but in people and money leaving the church. No one wants to pay the price to make it better.
It is easy to rationalize that the mission efforts are doing some good, but their effectiveness would be put at risk if the problems were addressed. Better a bird in the hand . . .
The issues are about things that are not visible week to week because they are happening in other countries. There always seems to be a more urgent local issue to address.
Why must the church address these problems?
The church could be having a much more significant global impact than they are. The greatest losses are hidden because they are lost opportunities with unnamed, invisible, unreached people.
The church will grow disenchanted or downright cynical about missions, if the problems are not addressed.
It is devastating for missionaries and national workers to be caught in unhealthy systems. The problems feel very personal to them. They can’t easily see that the problem is with the sending congregation instead of with them. Poorly aligned missions break down workers.
The good news is that all of these problems are fixable. In my next few blog posts, I’ll unpack some of the steps to improvement. Unlike dysfunctions, healthy missions ministries are greatly diverse. What makes them thrive is not a common pattern but that they are well aligned with and supported by the congregation as a whole.
If you are interested in constructing a healthy missions ministry, we would love to help you. It won’t be cookie-cutter and won’t come in an easy to assemble box, but it is worth the effort to cook from scratch and develop a mission’s ministry that transforms parts of God’s world while giving life to the supporting congregation.