Skip to main content

The Future of Missions?

This past week in formation group we had a special guest for 'Global Christian Week.' Tim Taylor, founder and director of Coffee Ambassadors came to present a new model for doing missions that he considers the future of missions, that is business as missions.

What is business as missions? Business as missions is starting for profit businesses that are not first and foremost concerned about making money. They aim to reflect Christ in the way they do business, specifically they do business ethically and with the goal of having a positive impact on the lives of all who they come in contact with and ultimately building relationships through which they can share the gospel. Perhaps it would be easiest to explain through the example of what Tim is doing in Coffee Ambassadors.

Coffee is the number two traded commodity in the world. Typically, coffee is bought from farmers in the developing world for a low price, traded several times along the way, and then purchased by coffee roasters. Each individual along the way takes some profit. What Coffee Ambassadors does is to go in and work directly with the farmers (called 'direct trade' which is different than fair trade, but for the sake of space I won't get into that here) and pays them much higher prices for their coffee. They can do this since the middle man is out of the way. They also work with the farmers on ways to improve their coffee so that they can charge a higher price for it. Through this, they help local farmers by paying them more, which in turn helps local economies. At the same time, they are building relationships with these farmers through which they can share the gospel. As an aside, 73% of unreached people groups reside in areas that grow coffee.

What do you think of this form of missions? I like it because it focuses on the whole picture. It's not just about saving souls, it redeems the entire man. It helps people regain a sense of dignity that is often lost through the unethical way trade is often done, which I believe comes full circle and is a powerful testimony to the work of Christ in our lives. What do you think? What do you see as some of the advantages and drawbacks of this approach?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5