Leading in a World of Relentless Activity

EMQ » Oct – Dec 2026 » Volume 62 Issue 4

Summary: Relentless activity can lead mission leaders to equate achievement with faithfulness. Historical influences such as the Protestant work ethic and the missionary industrial complex have helped create this tendency. In contrast, biblical and missiological perspectives suggest that practices of waiting, watching, and participating offer a way of recovering attentiveness to God and create a healthier pattern of engagement in God’s mission.

By Kirk J. Franklin

Remembering Who Owns Mission

For over a decade, I led a global mission agency in rapidly changing, complex social, cultural, economic, political, and religious contexts. Each presented unique challenges and obstacles. I naturally thought that as I led, I could gather the skills and experience to handle any leadership challenges ahead.

Leading inevitably means long hours devoted to planning, strategy, budgeting, and working to achieve the outcomes we hope for. Mission history is known for men and women who believed they had the vision and faith to make a difference in God’s mission. Consider the modern Protestant missionary movement associated with William Carey in the late eighteenth century, its expansion through leaders such as Hudson Taylor in the nineteenth century, and later the Student Volunteer Movement, which popularized the ambitious goal of the evangelization of the world in this generation.

That vision continues to influence participation in mission. I often discovered that mission leaders pursued relentless activity. As a result, we lead in mission without “digging deeper into understanding God and his ways and means for mission.”[i] In other words, as Georg Vicedom proposed back in the 1960s, “mission is work that belongs to God…. God is the Lord, the One who gives the orders, the Owner, the One who takes care of things.”[ii] The triune God is the missionary God and, therefore, is the initiator of mission. It makes sense to have a process that helps us consider what this means for our efforts in serving God in his mission.

The relentless striving for progress through missional activity is not just a time-management challenge. It is spirituality formed by deeper factors. I suggest that several influences are at play: the Protestant work ethic, the missionary industrial complex, and the ethics of leadership. These can influence us to confuse productivity and achievement with faithfulness in God’s mission.

What follows is the pursuit of a balance to overcome the relentless pursuit and distraction of pressing activities that we think serve faithfully in God’s mission.

The Spiritual Cost of Relentless Work

Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904–1905)emphasized themoral and spiritual significance attached to one’s vocation. Work, Weber argued, was never merely economic because it carried ethical and theological significance.[iii] Through our labor, we reveal something about our character, and this means work becomes a mirror of our soul.

Weber observed that the Calvinist emphasis on predestination created anxiety about salvation.[iv] In response, people pursued their work with seriousness and discipline, often viewing success in their vocation as evidence of God’s favor. Over time, this connection of hard work and stewardship contributed to the development of the capitalist economic systems.

Justin Nnaemeka Onyeukaziri deepens this insight by noting that work brings humans into “an interaction that necessarily implies moral oughtness and ethical judgments.”[v] Through our efforts, every task becomes an ethical act that reflects who we are before God.

The Protestant work ethic views work as more than a means of earning a living. Hard work carries a moral responsibility and is an expression of devotion to God. Scott Bessenecker notes how “making a profit because of thrift and industry reflects one’s goodness or even one’s godliness.”[vi] Likewise, Leita Ngoy observes that the ethical use of wealth aligns with the Christian doctrine of stewardship and embodies the desire not merely to be blessed, but to become a blessing to others.[vii]

There is much to admire in this vision. Calling, diligence, and stewardship remain important. Even so, leaders can gradually begin to judge faithfulness by what they accomplish. Achievement can become evidence of God’s blessing. Relentless activity may become a sign of spiritual commitment.

When this happens, the danger becomes confusing busyness with obedience and productivity with impact upon God’s mission.

The Modern Mission Enterprise

The missionary industrial complex is a description of the interconnectedness, especially in colonial societies, of mission agencies, governments, businesses, and humanitarian organizations. These relationships helped advance education, health, and social reform. Yet they also promoted colonial interests. In the process, mission was sometimes shaped by assumptions of control, expansion, and achievement rather than by participation in God’s work.

Within the missionary paradigm, Western institutions managed the global flow of Christian resources, including people and funding. But they also influenced mission strategies and theology. Control was often exercised through these same structures. Even the language of partnership could mask significant imbalances, as influence followed the flow of money and expertise.

This history invites us to rethink mission partnerships. Missional practitioners can build relationship-based collaborations that transcend the mere transactions implied by many partnerships. In my experience, healthy collaboration grows over time. It develops as people get to know each other, learn to trust one another, and discover how to work across cultural and other differences.

Latin American mission leader David Cardenas observes that leadership in the world, and too often in the church, is defined by “power, control, position, success, fame, and followers—the more, the better.”[viii] These assumptions have also shaped the way global mission has been led and resourced.

The question beneath these patterns is ultimately theological. Who is really in control of God’s redemptive mission? When mission is identified with our structures and achievements, we can readily mistake God’s mission for our own participation in it. Recovering a deeper understanding of God’s ways requires us to examine these historical and ethical influences and rediscover mission as God’s work before it is ours.

Ethics and God’s Mission

Ethics is about how we should live. Arthur Holmes explains that ethics addresses both “the good,” the values and virtues we should cultivate, and “the right,” our moral duties.[ix]

For those who participate in God’s mission, ethics is far more than a list of right and wrong decisions. It should be the framework of beliefs, values, and assumptions that shape how we behave. Ethics is not confined to difficult decisions. It shows up in the way we engage with the Bible, work with people, and navigate the realities of ministry. It asks what faithfulness looks like here and now.

Because God’s character shapes his mission, ethics and mission are inseparable. Dean Flemming describes God’s mission as God’s “massive purpose to bring wholeness and redemption to the entire creation, especially people from every nation.”[x] Because mission originates in the life and purposes of the triune God, ethics is not an appendix to mission. It is woven into its very fabric.

As Nelus Niemandt observes, “God’s mission calls for human response, and that includes ethical dimensions.” Mission, he argues, “is ethical at its core, for it demands committed obedience to the Lord.”[xi]

The credibility of God’s message depends in part on the integrity of God’s messengers. What we proclaim and how we live belong together.

Because mission is ethical at its core, integrity is not optional. It is the heartbeat of faithful participation in God’s mission. Yet relentless activity can slowly erode this ethical center. Productivity can become a substitute for faithfulness. Ambition can overshadow integrity. Success can become easier to measure than obedience. The temptation is to trade character for achievement. Sooner or later, every leader must wrestle with what to do with influence and power.

Mission is not simply about what we accomplish for God. It is about who we become as we learn God’s ways and join him in his work. Amid relentless activity, the world watches not only what we do, but how we do it, and whether our lives reflect the character of the God we proclaim.

Postures for Missional Leadership

Relentless activity can make it difficult to attend to God. Yet mission is not merely acting for God. It involves learning his ways and responding to what he is already doing. Three postures are worth cultivating to help rebalance missional leadership: waiting, watching, and participating. Over time, such habits help leaders to slow down enough to notice God’s activity and respond thoughtfully. They are not an excuse for doing less. Instead, they shape the way leaders engage in God’s mission. None of this implies passivity or inactivity.

Waiting (attending to and knowing God). God’s approach is not like our own. Isaiah 55:8–9 reminds us that God’s “thoughts” or “plans” are nothing like ours and that his “ways are far beyond anything [we] could imagine” (NLT). In the context of God’s gracious invitation to salvation, Paulson Pulikottil observes that the difference between God’s thoughts and ours “is as vast as the distance between the heavens and the earth.”[xii] As participants in God’s mission, we often assume that vision, strategy, and action are sufficient. Yet, Isaiah points to the difference between God’s ways and our own instincts. Vision and strategy matter, but discernment requires attentiveness. Elijah discovered this when he encountered God in “the sound of a gentle whisper” (1 Kings 19:12, NLT). Waiting helps us resist premature action.

Waiting involves more than stillness. Moses understood this. As he prepared to lead God’s people, he prayed, “Let me know your ways so I may understand you more fully and continue to enjoy your favor” (Exodus 33:13, NLT). Moses is a role model of the importance of knowing God before pursuing what God has invited us to do.

Watching (discerning God’s activity). Jesus said, “He does only what he sees the Father doing” (John 5:19, NLT). Jesus does not operate independently. The Son is dependent on the Father. Jesus’ ministry was not driven by relentless activity. It flowed from his attentiveness to the Father. He watched, discerned, and participated. The pattern of missional leadership is not relentless activity, but attentive participation in the Father’s work.

Participating (listening together). Participating in God’s mission is never an individual exercise. God’s people discern together.James urges believers to be “quick to listen” (James 1:19, NLT). James is dealing with the important issue of “learning to listen when faced with all kinds of ethical confusion.”[xiii] One of the ways Jeffrey S. Krohn advocates for doing this is to “learn to look at Scripture through the perspective of others.”[xiv] Learning to listen includes learning from one another. Believers in the Majority World and the Minority World need one another. People from different cultures have much to teach each other. Such relationships flourish when they are marked by humility and genuine openness to learn.

Far from diminishing mission, these practices can enrich it. They remind leaders that ministry is sustained by growing attentiveness to God and a willingness to follow where he leads, rather than by effort and activity alone.

Learning Through Community and Global Voices

David Bosch famously argued that there is only “missiology in draft.”[xv] Mission theology is always provisional and continually in need of reform because God’s people are repeatedly discerning how to live faithfully in changing circumstances.

Nelus Niemandt describes missional leadership as “the transformation of people and institutions to participate, through meaningful relations and in the power of the Spirit, in God’s mission.”[xvi] This “Spirit-led transformation … is a turn towards discernment by God’s pilgrim people.”[xvii] Such transformation of people in global, regional, and local contexts depends on the Holy Spirit’s empowerment. If mission is participation in God’s dynamic activity, leadership must also be discerning and responsive. Leadership outcomes are not linear. Insights emerge through collaborative relationships as leaders faithfully interpret both God’s mission and their changing environment.

We can apply this valuing of collaborative learning to understanding what missional leadership is. An example of this collaboration occurred among leaders in the Integrated Mission Leadership (IML) program at the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies. During the IML program, international mission leaders reflected on the seven characteristics of missional leadership listed in the following table. Their responses illustrate how practitioners from diverse contexts strive to embody these dimensions of missional leadership.

Summary description of characteristics of missional leadership	How international mission leaders (from IML) practically interpreted each description
It is a paradigm shift from the Christendom concept of leadership through title and position to equipping all of God’s people to live and serve in his mission because “we all belong to each other” (Romans 12:5, NLT).	When people are our focus, this is shown in our hospitality, teaching, reflective mission practice, vulnerability, and continuous learning.
Its focus starts with the inner transformation of the leader who lets God change “the way you think” (Rom. 12:2). The result is that God’s people operate in a prophetic lifestyle that enables one to “speak out with as much faith as God has given you” (Romans 12:6, NLT) as they are empowered by the Holy Spirit to represent Christ to the world (Acts 1:8).	We trust God through the process of mission, holding the tension of the known/unknown while trusting God to show and lead through uncharted terrain.
It involves leading and equipping the transformation of God’s people to take their place in God’s story and effectively participate in discipling the nations (Matthew 28:19).	We create spaces to discover and develop spiritual gifts, influencing people to own and affirm their giftedness, and mutually appreciate each other’s gifts as a team.
It means having learned the freedom of the Holy Spirit, which leads to the release of an innovative spiritual gift with missional imagination “to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church” (Ephesians 4:12, NLT).	We intentionally mobilize diverse people in teams, recognizing each as an image-bearer of God and equipped with spiritual gifts, unique talents, experiences, and personalities to faithfully serve God together in his mission.
It requires discerning with the Holy Spirit and God’s community what God is doing in the world (Acts 13:2).	We discern and respond to diverse contexts, leveraging others’ strengths to navigate change and challenges faithfully.
It means reading the Bible through a missional lens and living within the narrative of Scripture. This equips the people of God to interpret the Bible in their contexts. They are equipped with biblical and theological minds, coupled with the ability to understand the changing cultural context because “the Word of God is alive and powerful” (Hebrews 4:12, NLT).	We place the Bible as the authority for leadership, understanding Scripture as the main source of courageous, adaptive, and contextual missional leadership. We live the Spoken Word and lead followers into a new reality that displays Christlike character.
It upholds ethical and personal integrity amid diverse contexts, behaviors, and practices because missional leaders don’t try “to hide their sins like other people do, concealing the guilt in [their] heart” (Job 31:33, NLT).	As leaders, we have extra high standards of transparency and accountability in both our personal and professional lives.

Table 1: Summary and interpretation of the characteristics of missional leadership

The reflections of these international leaders suggest that missional leadership is less about control and achievement and more about transformation, discernment, collaboration, biblical formation, and integrity. Their responses support the theme that missional leadership does not begin with position or productivity. Instead, they point in a different direction. Many described the importance of seeking God’s guidance and learning how to work with others in ways that reflected the Spirit’s leading.

Conclusion

Relentless mission activity, with its busy schedules and inherited habits of productivity, achievement, control, and institutional survival, needs to be reconsidered. Waiting, watching, and participating are practices that help leaders learn God’s ways and serve more faithfully in the changing world. Living and working this way forms a faith that can endure through the complexities and uncertainties of ministry.

Looking back, I have become convinced that faithful ministry involves more than managing plans and pursuing outcomes. It also requires learning to notice God’s activity and responding with humility and trust. In the end, mission is not sustained by relentless activity, but by joining the God whose thoughts and ways are higher than our own and whose mission has always been his before it was ever ours.

AI Declaration

AI tools were used to help with grammar and editing.

---

[i] Kirk Franklin, Towards Global Missional Leadership (Regnum Books, 2017), 22.

[ii] Georg Vicedom, The Mission of God: An Introduction to a Theology of Mission (Concordia House Publishing, 1965), 5.

[iii] Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Routledge, 2001).

[iv] Leita Ngoy, “Theology of Mission and Prosperity in James,” in Reading James Missiologically: The Misisonary Motive, Message and Methods of James, ed. Abeneazer G. Urga, Jessica A. Udall, and Edward L. Smither (William Carey Publishing, 2025), 170.

[v] Justin Nnaemeka Onyeukaziri, “Artificial Intelligence and an Anthropological Ethics of Work: Implications on the Social Teaching of the Church,” Religions 15, no. 623 (2024): 10.https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15050623.

[vi] Scott A. Bessenecker, Overturning Tables: Freeing MIssions from the Christian-Industrial Complex (IVP Books, 2014), 49.

[vii] Ngoy, “Theology of Mission and Prosperity in James,” 170-71.

[viii] David Cardenas, “Collaborative Missional Leadership,” in Collaborative Missional Leadership, ed. Kirk J. Franklin (Regnum, 2025), 235.

[ix] Arthur E. Holmes, Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions, ed. C. Stephen Evans, Contours of Christian Philosophy, (InterVarsity Press, 1984), 10.

[x] Dean Flemming, Foretaste of the Future: Reading Revelation in Light of God’s Mission (InterVarsity Press, 2022), 7.

[xi] C.J.P. Niemandt, “Trends in Missional Ecclesiology,” HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 68, no. 1 (2012): 9.https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v68i1.1198.

[xii] Paulson Pulikottil, “Isaiah,” in South Asia Bible Commentary, ed. Brian Wintle (MI: Zondervan, 2015), 910.

[xiii] Andria Solomon, “James,” in Africa Bible Commentary, ed. Tokunboh Adeyemo (Zondervan, 2006), 1510.

[xiv] Jeffrey S. Krohn, “Eschatology and Mission in James,” in Reading James Missiologically, ed. Abeneazer G. Urga, Jessica A. Udall, and Edward L. Smither (William Carey Publishing, 2025), 77.

[xv] David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Orbis Books, 2011), 510.

[xvi] C.J.P. Niemandt, “Transformative Spirituality and Missional Leadership,” Mission Studies, 13, no.1 (2016): 85-103.

[xvii] C.J.P. Niemandt, “Discerning Spirituality for Missional Leaders,” in Leading in a VUCA World: Integrating Leadership, Discernment and Spirituality, ed. Jacobus (Kobus) Kok and Stephen van den Heuvel (Cham, DE: Springer, 2019), 157.

---

---

EMQ, Volume 62, Issue 4. Copyright © 2026 by Missio Nexus. All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from Missio Nexus. Email: [email protected].