Medical Missions - 2003

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)