Up at the top of the list of parts of the Bible that seem generally pretty useless except as fodder for cross-referencers—along with the passage that parses whether one can eat a catfish, and the list of Esau’s descendants—are the personal remarks at the end of Paul’s letters. Pastors in our churches dutifully preach on them, and we dutifully listen, but try as we might, we just have a hard time getting excited about Aristarchus. The end of the epistle usually has a certain restlessness in its exposition. We know that all the theological meat is behind us and that a new sermon series starts next week, so Paul’s final greetings always end up as a kind of holding pattern, an anticlimax.
This, at least has been my own unsanctified experience, and now that I’ve confessed it, I’m happy to report that the past week brought with it some baby steps toward a better appreciation of the whole scripture. As Paul winds up his epistle to the Ephesians, he puts it in the hand of Tychicus to deliver to the Ephesian church, and he adds a curious note:
“Tychicus, the dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will tell you everything, so that you also may know how I am and what I am doing. I am sending him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may encourage you.”
Now, we all know that it’s very dangerous to construct an entire theological edifice from a single verse, but since I’ve already made so much theological progress this week, I’m going to fall prey to this temptation. Two steps forward, one step back. Paul, missionary, detained and unable to come in person to the church at Ephesus, sends not only his official communication in the form of the letter, but also designates an emissary who is going to fill in all the gaps about Paul’s ministry that for whatever reason he didn’t include in the letter. Specifically, Tychicus has three areas he has to cover in his report: 1)How Paul is, 2)What Paul is doing, and 3)To encourage the congregation. As I see these verses, Tychicus might reasonably be considered as a short-term missionary, and Paul here gives us his job description.
There is always discussion—in Karamoja and elsewhere—on the costs and benefits of short-term missions. In times of busyness or stress or when our team is running lean, we tend to wonder aloud, “do we really want to keep having so many visitors?” One book will be written on the dangers of short-term missions, and as soon as the ink is dry another book will be published extolling their virtues. On our mission, the debate usually centres around whether there will be any useful work for them to perform on the mission and whether a short visit might be a gateway to a longer-term of service.
But, as I wrote earlier this year about our itineration, and as we prepare to embark on a few further weeks of travel, our effort to communicate about the work in Karamoja seems like a drop in the bucket. There are hundreds of OPC churches (to say nothing of other like-minded churches who might be excited to hear about the Gospel spreading in Karamoja), and we’ve been able to appear in person at a few dozen during our furlough. Most of these churches have not had a representative from the Karamoja mission darken their door in a decade or more. As a practical matter, it’s simply not feasible. Yes, the prayer cards are sent out; yes there is the occasional blog post or email newsletter, but all of it can only convey so much.
And so, I see Paul in Ephesians laying out a vital role for the short-term missionary. He doesn’t use that title, and perhaps it’s a misnomer, but every visitor to the Karamoja mission is a potential Tychicus—spending time with the missionaries, observing their lives and work with a careful and critical eye, distilling the whole experience down to the most pertinent aspects, and reporting it back to congregations in his or her own home in order to give a fuller picture of the missionaries and the mission so that the supporting churches will be encouraged.
I realise that this may seem like old hat. Presentations from short-term mission trips are a pretty standard practice. But for me, Paul’s words have clarified several aspects of the process for the senders, the sent, and the receivers all. First, that short-term missionaries, or perhaps we call them Tychicites or Tychicans, are in the abstract an unequivocal good. Paul does not address what process he used in selecting Tychicus to go, but the act of tychicizing, when done faithfully and well, is good for the church. Second, the visitor has a duty both to observe and memorialise as carefully as possible all that goes on and to take seriously his or her task of presenting that work vividly upon return. Third, the mission has a duty to expose the visitor to the missionaries and the mission work as fully as possible. We are not simply trying to make work or kill time for our visitors. They should be entering into our lives in all their components—work and play, profound and prosaic—so that their reports will be accurate and full. Lastly, the sending congregation should prioritise sending out individuals who will make good reports, and giving ample attention to the reports they bring back. A few minutes before the Sunday evening service will not suffice; possibly several churches in the area need to have a joint service; possibly there should be a meal. The presentation should be an event. It may be the only chance these churches have to hear from a live person about the work God is doing in this particular corner of the world, let the opportunity not be wasted.
When handled well, short-term missionaries need not be a terror to the long-term missionaries or to the church accountants back home. We ought instead to view them as wonderful means by which to amplify news about God’s kingdom work wherever it is taking place.