You guys, I finally have it.
That quintessential white-girl-holding-an-african child-, emotion evoking, heart wrenching, Jesus proclaiming photo.
Only I prefer the term slightly-semi-tan, and the child wasn't African and the photo was taken three seconds before said not african child burst into tears.
(So I guess it was emotion evoking after all)
It was such a letdown, my mission trip moment! Here I was, serving the Lord in a poor, remote village, miles away from civilization and working restrooms and this child just didn't have the decency to cooperate. Didn't she know what was at stake?
How would anyone on Facebook know I gave up everything for a week to serve Jesus if I didn't post a photo of me holding a sweet little black baby?
Apparently Dominican babies are not trained to make sure that semi-tan short term missionaries feel useful in the kingdom of God.
As I handed the uncooperative child back to her mother, I realized how stupid it all was, myself included. I don't know at what point stock photos of missionaries holding babies became the pinnacle of missionary greatness and successful sharing of the gospel, but that's what I had in my head. Because the only way to share the gospel is to hold children, right?
Serving the lord is different for everyone. And I know, we've heard that a million times in stuffy Sunday morning services, but it's true. Being a true missionary, whose sole purpose is to share the eternal Gospel of Christ, is not exactly. There is no "hold and african baby and smile" formula for spreading the good news. Some are called to build churches and some to pastor them, others to lead worship and others to clean up after church.
And some of us are not called to hold african babies, it turns out.
I held this child for three seconds and learned thirty million things about my faith, my savior and my mission here on earth.
And so we wonder, who is the actual missionary here?
SaveSave