Communication Technologies

There are many ways in which technology has had, and is having, an impact on mission. One of the most obvious ways is through transportation technologies. It once took missioners weeks or months to reach a mission destination via water and/or ground transportation, whereas today we can get on an airplane and be at our destination within hours.

We might also consider communication technologies, with the proliferation of telephones, cell phones, and computer-mediated communication options playing some kind of role in the transformation of mission. Without a doubt that is true. But while ease of communication is a definite benefit in planning, coordinating and relationship building, there are many aspects of this change that are less obvious that have the potential to be problematic.

Many have benefited from the opportunities presented by various communication technologies. For example, various aid organizations have discovered that cell phone technology presents opportunities for improving access to commodities markets and for accelerating access to emergency medical care, to name a few of the benefits. As such, they have supported increased access to cell phones in developing countries, vastly increasing the use of cellular technologies. For us in the church, it is becoming common for a Bishop and others on diocesan staff to each own and use two or three cell phones. For mission leaders, broad adoption of these technologies makes it considerably easier than in the past to gain access to Bishops, diocesan staff, community leaders and various other mission coordinators in host countries.

Similarly, email offers an opportunity for planning that is arguably well suited to support mission efforts. We are less likely to have our snail mail go astray, and we can know within a relatively short period of time whether our communication has reached its destination with a quick reply from our host contact or an automated read receipt. Given differences in our native languages, email provides an opportunity for a recipient to think through the content of correspondence, possibly reply quickly with clarifying questions, and carefully craft a reply before sending an official responds … again, hypothetically, all in a reasonably short period of time.

In addition to asynchronous technologies such as email, there are a number of other synchronous technologies such as Skype, along with telephonic technologies, that facilitate communication. Synchronous communication provides a great tool for organizing and planning mission trips, once any barriers presented by different time zones and language skills are addressed. It’s possible to schedule a time to instant message, for example, carrying on a non-visual conversation with a counterpart in a host country. Then there are technologies that take advantage of the Internet that have made voice communication extremely affordable without using a phone. In most cases, such as with Skype, these technologies further enable participants to see one another through video conferencing. Vocal inflection and body language, which are lost in asynchronous communication, can mitigate some of the potential challenges presented by cultural differences and the use of languages that are not native to one or both of the participants.

All of the preceding technologies present tremendous opportunities for enhanced communication, hence increased opportunities for planning mission activities. As such, I suggest that they are having a transformative affect on global mission, expanding opportunities, and accelerating the rate at which people engage in global mission. But I also note that the impact of these technologies is not always as beneficial as people might initially assume. These technologies also come at a cost, presenting challenges and the possibility for negative impacts on global mission relationships.

There are many challenges presented by new technologies. For example, those of us in Western, or what is often referred to as developed countries, have developed different habits within the context of different cultures, hence we have different social expectations when we use our technologies. Many of us have come to expect that an instant message should be responded to immediately. If more than ten minutes pass between sending some type of text message, we have the feeling that we’re being snubbed or ignored. We typically expect some kind of response to an email within 24 hours, two days at the most. When we don’t receive a response, we assume our message didn’t get through or the recipient has deliberately chosen not to respond. We’ve also come to assume that if someone has a technology, they use it in the same way that we do. For example, many of us have grown to assume that if someone has a cell phone they keep it on at all times, and, therefore, are always accessible. What we fail to realize, is that in a different cultural context an immediate response may not be the norm or not possible. In addition, power is often inconsistent in developing countries. So while someone may have a cell phone, they may not have access to a power source to maintain a charge for the battery. Internet service is understandably limited in remote locations in developing countries, making it difficult to respond quickly to an email even if there is sufficient electricity. We often forget that computers are a valuable commodity, making them prime targets for theft, which is exacerbated in a developing country where computers can be sold on the black market for anywhere from a month’s to a year’s wages.

All of the preceding challenges are in addition to the obvious challenge of language barriers presented by first and second languages. It’s becoming increasingly recognized that language itself is more culturally based than many have previously believed. While we may be able to translate and use the actually words, their cultural context can give them significantly different meaning. We may be able to speed communication, but may also have more opportunity for miscommunication due to differences in meaning related to cultural context and less time to fully process cultural differences.