Medical Mission?
Allow me to share with you some of the doubts
and questions I have of what goes by the term ‘medical mission’ and also some
of my own views about the same. This piece of writing is not to refute the
current thinking on medical mission, but more as an exercise in bringing out
the other side of the picture. As I write I realise that my work has nothing to
reflect on what propositions I want to put forward here. I can only speak here
as one ‘not having accomplished, but as one learning to know the right thing to
do’.
What is medical
mission? What we do we mean by the term – medical mission?
While the word
mission in Christian parley is well understood why the suffix medical here? Do
other professions also have separate missions such as education mission,
agriculture mission, engineering mission etc? We hardly hear of such profession
related missions except in medical and dental? Why?
What do usually
passes off as medical mission?
What is the
current understanding of medical missions? To do this what are the goals of
medical missions according to some of our contemporary leaders in ‘medical
missions’ –
A CEO of a
national medical organization spoke of the organization he heads as ‘a broader association of health care
professionals committed to influencing healthcare in India’.
The impression
one gets is that the objective of the organization is more of ‘medical’ concern
than that anything else; and a good healthcare system seems to be the end
result.
It was also
mentioned ‘medical missions’ need to be vibrant and inclusive in response to
the changing needs of the society.
As we cannot
expect the ‘mission’ of Jesus Christ to change with time, it shows that the
current emphasis is on the ‘medical’ part the term ‘medical mission’.
Sometimes one
wonders if we are not using the word mission loosely in the same way the world
does today e.g. literacy mission, immunisation mission, etc.
Sometimes there
is an attempt to use the term ‘medical mission’ interchangeably with
‘healing ministry’. There is a tendency on the part of Christian health
professionals to think that just because we are engaged in ‘healing’ (are we
really involved in ‘healing’ is another question) somehow health professionals
become the chosen perpetuators /inheritors of Jesus’ ministry in this
particular field! This is to say the least - presumptuous!
Yet another CEO
of a medical mission organisation states that ‘the duty of the churches is to
proclaim the gospel’ and that of the Christian hospitals is to 'demonstrate the
gospel and for this reason the churches need the Christian hospitals’.
This again I
think is a very sweeping statement presuming that gospel can only or is best
demonstrated by the work of the Christian hospitals and that they represent the
visible face of the gospel. I believe Christians in all walks of life are
called to demonstrate the power of the gospel in their lives and they all can
irrespective of whether they belong to the ‘healing’ or medical profession or
not.
The statement
can almost be accused of considering medical professionals a group outside the
‘churches’ as if they are also not a part of the churches. The fact is each
individual Christian is a part of the visible church(es) as also a part of
being the body of Christ (the invisible church).
The same CEO
sees the aim of Christian medical institutions as to impact the ‘culture of
caring, in this country'. Unfortunately even here the emphasis is on the
‘caring’ – the medical side of it rather than on ‘mission’. He mentions about
‘redeeming medicine’ itself by redeeming the biblical prescription for caring
and by doing so transform the whole country. The wording he uses would sound
strange to someone who takes ‘mission’ as redeeming the lost (bringing back
persons to Christ) and comparing this with ‘redeeming a profession or a
professional conduct (caring culture)’ appears to be too tame!
Yet another
Christian health care professional has demonstrated through their projects that
‘advocacy’ as a strategy can bring about even greater health and development
impacts’ than hospitals and community health and development projects. The
emphasis here is on bringing about health impact.
Another leader
has often asked this question ‘what health impact has a particular hospital
brought about in the last 25 years or so’? What we expect of Christian
hospitals seems to be that their eyes were opened on the healthcare needs of
the area and that they engaged themselves to bring about positive changes. This
type of question often lead us to a lot more other questions – is health impact
the end result we are working towards? Do people come to missions primarily to
bring about health impact such as to reduce morbidity and mortality rates or to
communicate the gospel? May be the argument will be that if there is no result
in the tangible/visible, how can you expect to have result in the
intangible/invisible? There is definitely some truth in this kind of logic.
However the whole idea of health impact measuring to determine our successes or
failures in ‘mission’ is disturbing because if we are so caught up with
physical targets, there is a danger of missing the mark altogether.
There is a trend
in thinking that all that ‘medical mission’ should do is to stand against the
tide, to be prophetic and bringing about counter culture so that the medical
profession is not misused. The dignity of the noble profession is to be
maintained and not totally being swept away by consumerism, and
commercialisation and politicisation of the profession. Again this is nothing
but redeeming a profession. However noble, this cannot be compared to redeeming
the lost humankind for Christ.
I agree with a
colleague who said ‘mission is not (merely) working in a mission hospital but
having a sense of calling (‘vocation principle’) and that such person can be
working anywhere but has an ‘infused passion for God’. He further said that
such persons need to be directed through information sharing and assisting them
in their decision making process. Even after making decision for ‘mission’ they
need to be given continuous nurturing, emotional support, etc. We all agree
that there is a need for provision of such external on going support system.
However but there is a lot of silence about an individual’s responsibility
towards soul winning.
Present
Christian hospitals can hardly be called ‘mission’ hospital. First there is
hardly any proclamation of the gospel (If it done it is more as a routine duty
through public address system or routine ward preaching). Secondly, the
demonstration gospel is hardly there in reality. The majority of the work force
consisting of doctors, nurses, and others are not there as a result of a sense
of calling. They are there either for reasons other than missions. If we are to
say the hospitals represent ‘the visible face of Jesus’ it is a bit difficult
to swallow knowing that often Christian hospitals are distinguishable from
other medical hospitals only by their names! Thirdly, the few staff who are
there with a sense of calling are often smugly satisfied (or else far too
preoccupied) with performing routine clinical works. Even if they want to
‘witness’, they hardly have any time. Agreed that they demonstrate the gospel,
but is ‘mission’ complete without ‘proclamation’ (actually sharing the word of
God)?
Medical Mission
in medical colleges reaches out to students and as a result many have come to
the saving knowledge of Christ. There is a lot of fellowship, encouraging each
other and sharing of faith with others. I think it is the term ‘friendship
evangelism’ that was used by Dr Nghakliana in his booklet ‘Medical Evangelism’.
EMFI and UESI are doing tremendous work in colleges even today. As a result of
their efforts many are led to find out more about ‘medical mission’. But the
meaning of mission seems to undergo a sudden change outside the university
campus. There is no longer an emphasis
on bringing people to Christ or winning souls. We are stuck with the
‘demonstration model’ while we are hardly on the demonstration mode. From soul-winning mode in colleges, we shift
gear to patient-caring mode ( or least that what we say we are/ or should be)
in professional life. Instead of
impacting soul and spirit for eternity we aim at impacting lives in this world!
We are in danger of moving away from seeking the approval of God to seeking
that of the world!
What is mission?
To understand this, we need to understand the mission of Jesus? Anything else
falls short of ‘mission’ and we should not dilute the word by common usage as
the world does.
To be really
used of God, any one however highly trained and qualified would need to forget
themselves, of who they are and were, what they were or might have been in the
outside world, what kind of respectable and key positions their contemporaries
and colleagues are holding and what they also could have been; but begin
counting them as ‘dung’ even as Paul did of all his learning and his heritage,
and be instead given to the furtherance of the gospel body, soul and mind. Then
only God can use the ‘rod’ (tools) we have in our hand. If we reorient our
thinking as to be stalwarts of the gospel rather than that of our noble
profession, be prophets of God rather than be prophets of our profession and
its noble practices, and so on God can use us, even us! Let us be in ‘Christ’s
Mission’. Christians will always be salt and light (even without attempting to
be) even as we engage ourselves in proclaiming the Gospel. Let us put a heavy
dark shade over the ‘medical’ part what is termed ‘medical mission’. Let us be
primarily ‘missionaries’ – people in mission to redeem the lost ‘world’ for
Christ before His Second Coming whence we shall see all things as they really
should be –redeemed of their ‘lost glory’, etc.
What are we now?
To my
understanding, Christians institutions are just institutions owned and managed
by Christians. They belong to the category of charitable NGOs. I believe
medical professionals who are primarily missionaries started them. However the
cause for which they had been established has now been largely forgotten. Winning
people for Christ is not the top list of the agenda. Often there is no income
is earned by doing this, this particular remains the most neglected. Not of
course the least talked about. In fact the most talked about, but the least
attended to. Most hospitals are in survival mode and so number of surgical
operations done in a year and how it goes to support the running of the
hospital is what catches attention in annual meetings but not the number of
people receiving spiritual counselling. Numbers of people coming to OPD is
important but equally important, nay, more important is the number of seekers
who come to our hospitals.
Yes, I believe
we have good hospitals and good projects (at least palpably better than many
who are in our immediate neighbourhood). But we are nowhere near as good as our
own trumpets! Many people genuinely believe we would be very different from
others expecting us to be little Mother Teresas, but they might be sorely
disappointed if they stay with us for a week and watch us very closely.
Where are we
now?
We are, as I
say, at the level of being good NGOs. There is so much we can do here. In fact
we can stay here all days. Many of us think our place is here. To make an
impact, to make a difference, and to show forth good models for the world to
see and thus glorify God. I am sure God is glorified thus. May be we do
demonstrate the gospel.
Where to go from
here?
But the question
remains – is God’s kingdom extended? Are souls being saved? I believe ‘mission’
is where we should go next? Mission is the area in which we should grow.
Emphasis on mission will motivate the converted, should bring in more of the
‘constrained’ (the woe is me or necessity is laid upon me type of
missionaries). As prayers are made to God for reapers to harvest his field, the
Lord of Harvest will send forth (God will recruit!)!
Hospitals and
projects then become ‘mission centres’ and there would be as much spiritual
healing as there is physical healing. The ministry of healing and preaching
would then go together as was done by Jesus and the early church and would no
longer be compartmentalised as those who are engaged in ‘proclamation’ and
those who are engaged in ‘demonstration’.
Langkham
(31/08/2003 23:50)
