Understanding Mongolian Missionaries in Türkiye

I. Introduction

At present, seven Mongolian missionaries affiliated with the RAN Mission [2]are serving in Türkiye. Most of them are disciples of the author and have been engaged in long-term ministry among Turkish people for as long as nine years. This longevity has been made possible by the author’s spiritual, emotional, and financial care, personal modeling of life and ministry, as well as the spiritual and emotional mutual care and warm atmosphere among fellow team missionaries. The reason a study on who Mongolian missionaries in Türkiye are is necessary lies in the fact that such a study provides practical information and important clues for identifying ways to promote successful missionary settlement, cultural adaptation, and ultimately the development of practical leadership among Mongolian missionaries. Prior to examining who Mongolian missionaries in Türkiye are, an understanding of Mongolians themselves must come first, because Mongolian missionaries are Mongolians before they are missionaries. According to Lloyd E. Kwast’s four-level model of culture, culture can be divided into surface and deep levels, and the worldview at the deep level determines behaviors at the surface level (Winter et al., 2012, pp. 31–34). Therefore, in order to understand Mongolians, it is first necessary to study the worldview that shapes their behavior. Accordingly, first, by understanding the cultural characteristics of Mongolians from the past to the present, this study will examine what kind of worldview contemporary Mongolians hold. Second, by examining the characteristics of the Mongolian church to which Mongolian missionaries belong, this study will seek to understand their worldview and sense of destiny. Third, it will examine the situations of Mongolian missionaries as early settlers and bicultural persons.

II. Understanding Mongolians

In order to understand Mongolian missionaries, this study follows Charles H. Kraft’s anthropological approach to culture, models developed from receiver-oriented communication theory, and the biblical model of cultural relativism, which holds that God does not endorse any particular culture as uniquely “God’s culture,” nor does He favor one culture over another. This approach is grounded in Scripture, as 1 Corinthians 9:20–22 does not compel people to transform others’ cultural forms into a specific cultural form (Kraft, 2006, pp. 225–228). In understanding Mongolian missionaries, individual characteristics are also not overlooked, because not all Mongolians are the same. Paul G. Hiebert, citing Wallace, argued that “in complex modern societies, individual beliefs differ so greatly that we must speak of individual worldviews rather than cultural worldviews” (Wallace, 1956, pp. 264–281, as cited in Hiebert, 2021, p. 58).

Hiebert emphasized that human beings must be understood in a comprehensive and holistic manner (Hiebert, 2021, pp. 29–35). Accordingly, he proposed that in order to understand another’s culture, one must examine three dimensions of culture: the cognitive dimension, which relates to shared knowledge, learned knowledge acquired during upbringing, ideas, and mental frameworks; the affective dimension, which relates to aesthetic sensibilities, food, clothing preferences, emotions, and attitudes; and the evaluative dimension, which relates to judgments and values such as right and wrong, noble and base, appropriate and inappropriate (Hiebert, 2021, pp. 39–43). Therefore, in order to understand Mongolians, it is appropriate to adopt Hiebert’s framework of the cognitive, affective, and evaluative dimensions of culture. That is, from the cognitive dimension of culture, what have they learned through society, school, television and mass media, the internet, and family while growing up, and what beliefs and mental frameworks have been formed as a result? From the affective dimension of culture, what do they feel, and in what do they find comfort? From the evaluative dimension of culture, what do they place greater value on? By seeking answers to these questions, this study aims to understand Mongolians.

(1) Anthropological Background and Characteristics of Mongolians

From the cognitive dimension of culture, the ideas and mental frameworks that form the cultural background of Mongolians are nature worship and a nomadic identity. These have been naturally acquired and internalized through the natural environment and everyday life in which Mongolians live. On the vast grasslands at elevations exceeding 1,000 meters above sea level, on the Mongolian Plateau where the high blue sky meets the horizon of the earth, Mongolians began to look at the sky and worship it. In Mongolian, “sky” is Tenger (Тэнгэр), and Mongolians believed that supernatural phenomena in the natural world were related to the “Eternal Heaven” (Mönkh Tenger, Мөнх Тэнгэр) or the “Blue Heaven” (Khökh Tenger, Хөх Тэнгэр). They also believed that all rises and falls in the human world depended on the will of Tenger (Тэнгэр), and they sought not to incur misfortune by treating Tenger with neglect (Jamslan, 2015, p. 50). From this view of nature, Mongolians’ human landscape naturally emerged. That is, from Mongolia’s natural environment and their worldview toward nature, the principles and patterns of life as nomads emerged organically (Lee, E. S., 2001, p. 58). Borzhi Banzarov, a prominent nineteenth-century Mongolian scholar from Buryatia, viewed shamanism not as a specific religious tradition formed in a particular time and place, but as a universal religious phenomenon to which any nomadic people naturally adapt (Atwood, 1996, p. 113). In other words, for Mongolians, shamanism is not merely a religion but their life and identity. Shamanistic beliefs are highly this-worldly and family-centered. They show little concern beyond oneself and one’s family, or, at most, one’s tribe. Consequently, they are inherently self-centered and lack an ethical consciousness (Kwon, 2013, pp. 78–79). There is no shared scripture containing moral laws, and since each individual seeks deities according to personal needs, communal consciousness and ethical norms are virtually absent.

When examining the affective dimension of Mongolian culture, as mentioned earlier, Mongolians’ human landscape is grounded in their view of nature. Therefore, their emotional preferences are closely tied to their distinctive natural environment. First, they favor fatty meat and dairy products, which are readily available and help them endure the harsh winter. From birth, lamb fat is applied to their bodies, and even tea is boiled with milk rich in fat. In addition, Mongolians enjoy movement and travel. More precisely, rather than having an inherent fondness for travel, constant movement in search of quality pastureland has made mobility and travel a routine part of life. Their energy is activated when they travel. Having lived by constantly leaving familiar places and moving to new ones, they are not afraid of encountering the unfamiliar. For this reason, Mongolians exhibit a remarkably high capacity for cultural adaptation. This also implies that while they adapt quickly, long-term settlement can be challenging. Even in housing, traces of nomadic culture remain. The outskirts of the capital city, Ulaanbaatar, are filled with traditional round felt-covered dwellings known as gers. Even those who have settled in the city inevitably leave it during the summer. Those who own modest summer houses live there throughout the season while commuting to work or spending weekends there. Those without summer houses prefer to spend the summer at relatives’ homes in the countryside or to take frequent rest trips. In this way, Mongolians eat well and rest well throughout the summer. This resembles the way livestock in Mongolia graze abundantly during the summer to gain weight and survive the winter. Thus, Mongolians are a people who truly know how to rest and enjoy leisure. This is a kind of happiness that Koreans, shaped by a “hurry-hurry” culture, can hardly experience.

Finally, when examining the evaluative dimension of Mongolian culture, their value standards clearly differ from those of Koreans. As discussed in the cognitive and affective dimensions, Mongolians’ value system is connected to their distinctive view of nature. When confronted with difficult problems, rather than resisting them, they readily accept them as destiny—that is, as the will of heaven. Accordingly, instead of striving to act against the natural order, they have learned a relaxed attitude of submitting to it (Lee, E. S., 2001, p. 53). This Mongolian value system stands in stark contrast to that of Koreans, who historically have had to defend limited land amid constant foreign invasions, live in competition and comparison with others, and consequently struggle to endure discrimination and disregard. Mongolians dislike defeat more than discrimination or disregard, because defeat is directly linked to the fate and survival of the tribe. This cultural disposition is evident in a distinctive feature of traditional Mongolian wrestling: the defeated wrestler bows and passes beneath the victor’s arm as a gesture of respect. This practice is related to historical contexts in which those defeated in war had to choose between death and allegiance to the victor. Their aversion to defeat also appears in everyday behavior. When someone accidentally steps on another person’s foot, it is customary to immediately offer a handshake to indicate that it was not intentional. Within this cultural framework, one can observe their sensitivity to aggression, their aversion to defeat, and their strong value of loyalty when placed in situations that demand allegiance to a victor.

At the same time, Mongolians tend not to make a big issue out of trivial matters. They are not particularly demonstrative in greetings, nor do they tend to demand or offer apologies for minor issues, as Koreans often do. In nomadic life, neighbors are essentially limited to one’s family. Among family members who live together daily, there is little need for frequent verbal greetings. Instead, guests who visit occasionally are treated with the utmost hospitality, reflecting a longing for human interaction. However, Korean missionaries who are unfamiliar with this cultural background can easily feel hurt by what appears to be a lack of warmth in greetings. Although urbanization in modern times has brought some changes to these tendencies, they still do not meet Korean expectations. This is because Koreans, shaped by Confucian culture, have undergone extensive training in greeting etiquette, resulting in a particularly high standard. In contrast, Mongolians have well-developed norms and numerous taboos related to housing practices, food hospitality, childrearing, marriage, and funerals. These exist to avoid committing impure acts that might provoke divine anger or invite harm from spirits.

(2) Anthropological Characteristics of Contemporary Mongolians

From the cognitive dimension, the most dominant shared and learned knowledge and mental framework among contemporary Mongolians is shamanism, grounded in the nomadic worldview of nature. Contemporary Mongolians internalize shamanism in everyday life from birth, and through formal education they learn traditional beliefs and spiritual culture. Although nomadic culture has largely diminished due to industrialization and urbanization, the cultural DNA of nomadism still remains deeply embedded within Mongolians. For example, upon leaving urban areas one immediately encounters the nomadic natural environment, and even within cities one can still find numerous traditional dwellings known as gers, which continually remind Mongolians of their nomadic identity. Traditional folk festivals such as Tsagaan Sar and Naadam, which are observed annually, further imprint the nomadic worldview of nature upon them and reinforce their Mongolian identity. Although shamanism lost much of its influence after the seventeenth century due to the promotion of Mongolian Buddhism (Lamaism) and the communist regime’s policy of religious eradication, it has been revived since the democratic transition of 1990 and continues to function as a central pillar of contemporary Mongolian spiritual culture and a vital cultural heritage (Jamslan, 2015, p. 51). The shamanistic DNA among Mongolians has never disappeared. Even during the revival of Mongolian Buddhism, shamanism penetrated Buddhist practices and significantly “shamanized” Mongolian Buddhism. Mongolian Buddhism is characterized by strong shamanistic elements, such as noisy rituals involving multiple instruments resembling shamanic ceremonies, and the use of a cylindrical prayer wheel inscribed with scriptures, called khüree (Хүрд), which substitutes for reading the scriptures themselves. Even under communism, shamanism merely went underground rather than disappearing, remaining alive within the Mongolian psyche. According to Bayasakh Jamsran Khereid, a professor at the National University of Mongolia, thousands of shamans have been emerging every year since the 2000s. These male and female shamans, believed to be designated by Tenger (Heaven) as divine intermediaries, serve as mediators between the living and the dead. Through them, ancestral spirits from 400–500 years ago are believed to descend and provide Mongolians with guidance and advice on how to live their daily lives (Jamslan, 2015, pp. 54–56).

The second major spiritual influence on contemporary Mongolians is the spirit of Chinggis Khan. The greatest concern of powers that sought to dominate Mongolia was the revival of the spirit of Chinggis Khan. During the communist period under Soviet satellite rule, authorities strictly suppressed any resurgence of this spirit. References to Chinggis Khan were taboo, and research on him was prohibited for a considerable period. However, after the democratic transition in 1990, scholarly research on Chinggis Khan resumed, leading to the revival of his spirit. This Chinggis Khan spirit is closely intertwined with nationalism and shamanism. According to Professor Purev, Chinggis Khan was the most powerful shaman in history, who conquered great cities and vast nations by hearing and obeying the voice of God speaking directly to him (Weatherford, 2005, pp. 33, 45). Furthermore, before going to war, Chinggis Khan would ascend high mountains to perform rituals, offering sacrifices and prayers to the sky deity for protection and blessing (Ianna, 2014, p. 243). Ultimately, the revival of the spirit of Chinggis Khan represents the revival of the Mongolian spirit itself and, simultaneously, the revival of shamanism.

The third spiritual influence shaping contemporary Mongolians is secularism. Economically, this takes the form of valuing wealth accumulation as the highest good under the influence of capitalism. At the same time, some Mongolians who experienced socialism nostalgically recall the past after witnessing the various negative consequences of secular capitalism. What is particularly noteworthy is that contemporary Mongolian secularism is deeply connected to shamanism, their traditional spiritual system. This is due to shamanism’s this-worldly, self-centered, and non-institutional religious characteristics. As a result, secularism and shamanism in contemporary Mongolia exist in a symbiotic relationship, and the capitalist market economy has become a driving force behind the revival of shamanism.

From the affective dimension, the anthropological characteristics of contemporary Mongolians reveal a contraction of traditional nomadic cultural traits alongside the expansion of Western culture and Korean popular culture (K-culture). Rapid industrialization and urbanization have transformed the social environment, leading urban Mongolians—especially younger generations—to become increasingly accustomed to urban culture. Their tastes, preferences, and styles have changed accordingly. In particular, Mongolia’s MZ generation, born into an era of widespread smartphone use and internet access, has begun to exhibit cultural characteristics markedly different from those of previous generations. Rather than inheriting traditional nomadic culture, they share a globalized MZ culture, enthusiastically consuming Western culture and the Korean Wave encountered through social media. Moreover, during the global COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2019, increased social media usage further accelerated these tendencies.

Finally, from the evaluative dimension, the anthropological characteristics of contemporary Mongolians can be understood as being rooted in traditional nomadic culture and shamanism, with additional layers of values introduced through historical encounters with communism and capitalism. The most significant values inherited from socialism are atheism, historical materialism, and the advancement of women’s rights. In some cases, this has produced the unintended consequence of elevating women’s status in the household beyond gender equality. Furthermore, the communist labor environment, which emphasized collective distribution, combined with the inherent relaxed temperament of nomadic culture to produce the margash (Маргааш, meaning “tomorrow”) culture of postponement. For example, when visiting government offices, officials often delay processing tasks and repeatedly instruct people to “come back tomorrow.” As a result, a popular saying has emerged among Mongolians: “Tomorrow never ends in Mongolia” (Mongoliin margash duusakhgui). Another cultural pattern that emerged under communism is the darga (Дарга, meaning “boss” or “authority”) culture. In this context, individuals become passive, evade responsibility, and act according to the presence or absence of authority figures—working diligently when a darga is present and carelessly when absent. This form of Mongolian bureaucratic culture is marked by fear of authority vested with public power and a tendency to become submissive before power. Such cultural traits hinder the development of diligence among Mongolians. On the positive side, however, darga culture stimulates loyalty, as Mongolians have historically been accustomed to pledging allegiance to a single leader since tribal society. Values newly introduced through capitalism include freedom, money, New Age spirituality, and postmodernism. Together with the revival of shamanism, these values have manifested as anti-Christian sentiment. This background helps explain why Christianity in Mongolia, which experienced rapid growth after democratization, has moved beyond stagnation and is now showing signs of decline.

III. Understanding the Mongolian Church

Mongolian missionaries are members of the Mongolian church. Therefore, in order to understand Mongolian missionaries properly, it is necessary to understand the Mongolian church as the spiritual soil that has nurtured them. The need to understand the Mongolian church is particularly pressing for two reasons. First, by examining the past and present of the Mongolian church, one can identify key leadership development elements necessary for Mongolian missionaries. Second, through the history of the Mongolian church, one can discern a unique sense of destiny shared by Mongolian missionaries. Accordingly, this section examines the implications of the history of the Mongolian church and its defining characteristics.

(1) Historical Background of the Mongolian Church

In order to understand the implications of the Mongolian church’s history and its characteristics, it is meaningful to examine its origins and the process of its rise and decline. The history of the Mongolian church can be broadly divided into five periods: (1) from 635 to 1206, spanning from the mission of the Persian Nestorian Church to the rise of Chinggis Khan; (2) the period of the Mongol Empire (1206–1368); (3) the post–Mongol Empire period (1368–1765); (4) the pre-modern period (1765–1990); and (5) the post-1990 democratic era (Kemp, 2001, as cited in Jeon, 2002, p. 262). The characteristics of each period can be summarized as follows: the first period was marked by the introduction of Christianity by the Church of the East, particularly the Nestorian and Turkic churches; the second period saw the growth of the Mongolian church alongside the Mongol Empire of Chinggis Khan; the third period involved the decline of the Mongolian church in tandem with the decline of the Mongol Empire; the fourth period represents a complete disappearance and historical discontinuity of the Mongolian church; and the fifth period reflects a modern revival characterized by rapid growth followed by equally rapid stagnation and decline (Lee, S. G., 2009, pp. 11–66).

Why, then, did the medieval Mongolian church disappear from history? Why did such a profound rupture occur in church history that contemporary Mongolians are largely unaware that a medieval Mongolian church ever existed? The reasons are as follows. First, the Mongolian church of that era failed to become indigenous. Evangelism was conducted in a top-down manner, preventing the establishment of grassroots churches, and Christianity functioned merely as a tool of khanly governance. The Bible was not translated, and clergy conducted religious activities in Syriac rather than Mongolian. As a result, Scripture-based discipleship was absent, and the church was filled with nominal believers. Second, the pluralistic religious worldview of Mongolians hindered genuine conversion and the rooting of faith, even though it facilitated the easy acceptance of Christianity. Third, the Mongolian Nestorian church was theologically problematic. Inscriptions on the Nestorian stele reveal that while the church was highly missionary in nature, it emphasized the symbol of the cross, worshiped facing east, and employed magical practices by priests (Moffett, 2004, pp. 639–640). This suggests that the Mongolian church likely fell into syncretism by blending elements of shamanism and Buddhism during the process of indigenization. Fourth, the church failed to raise indigenous Mongolian leaders, a problem closely connected to the first reason. Although medieval Mongolian Christianity produced notable leaders, including the Nestorian patriarch Yahballaha III, most leaders were of Turkic or Syrian origin, with few, if any, ethnic Mongolians. Fifth, the Mongolian Nestorian church became secularized and corrupt. The Catholic missionary William of Rubruck exposed Nestorian priests’ drinking, usury-driven wealth accumulation, and polygamy. Möngke Khan’s remark to Rubruck—“God gave you the Scriptures, but you do not keep them. God gave us shamans, and we do what they tell us and live in peace”—further substantiates this decline (Moffett, 2004, p. 642). Sixth, the division between the Nestorian and Catholic churches within the Mongol Empire weakened Christian witness. The conversion of the Onggud prince George from Nestorianism to Catholicism suggests that missionary efforts were more focused on consolidating influence than on saving unbelievers. The two Christian traditions engaged in mutual rivalry and denunciation, mirroring the internal power struggles that ultimately led to the collapse of the Mongol Empire itself. Seventh, the medieval Mongolian church lost the wildness and dynamism of the gospel. Originally missionary in spirit, Nestorian Christianity became settled and institutionalized when Kublai Khan moved the imperial capital to Beijing, abandoning mobile tent chapels in favor of permanent churches and monasteries, thereby extinguishing the gospel’s movement-oriented vitality.

(2) Characteristics of the Contemporary Mongolian Church

The first defining characteristic of the contemporary Mongolian church, revived through active mission efforts after the democratic transition of 1990, is that it has been significantly hindered by the traditional Mongolian worldview of nature. In other words, shamanism and Tibetan (Lamaist) Buddhism have obstructed the deep rooting of Christian faith among Mongolians. Mongolians tend to accept Christianity easily and abandon it just as easily. Mongolian believers are highly this-worldly, displaying intense passion for praise and prayer while showing relatively weak commitment to Scripture. Although worship services may appear fervent and filled with experiences of the Holy Spirit, tangible fruits in daily life are often lacking, due to the absence of disciplined practices of daily Scripture meditation that internalize the Word and bring transformation. In this way, the cathartic spirituality of shamanism has significantly contributed to the shamanization of Christianity (Kim, E. H., 2014, pp. 583–584). These characteristics of Mongolian religious devotion are also evident in Mongolian Buddhist practices. Instead of reading scriptures, devotees rotate prayer wheels (khüree) and believe that salvation can be attained through prostrations. Thus, Mongolian devotional practices favor action over textual engagement and pursue cathartic spirituality rooted in shamanism. Although, unlike the medieval Mongolian church, the Bible has been translated into Mongolian and both missionaries and local leaders emphasize the importance of Scripture, contemporary Mongolians still prefer experiential, this-worldly faith expressed through praise and prayer rather than through the Word.

The second characteristic of the contemporary Mongolian church is that it has been formed upon the foundation of the traditional Mongolian human landscape. Historically valuing brotherhood forged through blood alliances, Mongolian ministers exhibit strong fraternal bonds. This is reflected even in forms of address. Whereas Korean churches, influenced by Confucian culture, place great emphasis on the title “pastor,” Mongolians typically address one another simply as older or younger brothers. Although the influence of Korean church culture has recently introduced the use of pastoral titles, the emphasis on brotherhood remains unchanged. In this regard, Enkhtaivan and Dugermmaa, elder pastors representing the Mongolian church, offered pointed criticism to Korean missionaries in their article “Reflections and Proposals on the Fifteenth Anniversary of Korean Mission in Mongolia,” emphasizing the importance of unity within the Mongolian church:

It is also true that the vision of unity pursued by Korean missionaries appears somewhat misfocused. Although the unity currently demonstrated by Korean missionaries appears unified on the surface, it is no longer a secret—but a well-known fact—that they are divided into factions and often clash with one another. In particular, despite not being a biblical term, we earnestly hope to cast out, in the name of Jesus, the term “denomination,” which has come to occupy a central position in contemporary Christianity, from this land of Mongolia that has become a battlefield of unity. Even if casting it out proves impossible, the use of this Latin term, meaning “to name differently,” must at least be prohibited (Yamranz & Vanluu, 2006, p. 56).

In line with the aspirations of Enkhtaivan and Dugermmaa, the contemporary Mongolian church seeks interdenominational unity centered on the Mongolian Evangelical Alliance. Although many churches and local leaders come from diverse denominational backgrounds, there is a strong tendency to prioritize the national church over denominational affiliation.

Another characteristic of the Mongolian church influenced by the traditional human landscape is the difficulty of sustaining long-term ministry in a single area, particularly in discipleship and leadership development. This reflects the same issue that contributed to the decline of the medieval Mongolian church—the absence of grassroots faith movements through discipleship and the failure to establish indigenous leadership. This remains one of the most critical challenges facing the contemporary Mongolian church today. As shown in <Table 1> below, the modern Mongolian church experienced rapid growth, soon reached stagnation, and is already in decline.

<Table 1>

Number and Percentage of Christians in Mongolia

(Mongolian Mission Index 2021)

In November 2003, when the contemporary Mongolian church was experiencing rapid growth, the Mongolian Evangelical Alliance celebrated its seventh anniversary and proclaimed the following vision statement: “The Mongolian Church—We will make all Mongolians around the world disciples of Christ and proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven to all nations.” In the following year, 2004, at the Ikh Khuraldai (Их хуралдай, meaning “Grand Assembly”), the Mongolian church further declared a concrete goal of evangelizing 10 percent of Mongolia’s population by 2020. However, regrettably, the outcome in 2020, as shown in <Table 1>, declined instead to 1.4 percent. After experiencing stagnation throughout the 2010s, the Mongolian church transitioned into a period of decline within a relatively short time. What produced such a result? The author diagnoses the primary causes as the failure of discipleship and the failure to develop indigenous leadership. Robert Clinton has observed that in many parts of the Majority World, churches are increasing more rapidly than leaders, and this phenomenon is likewise evident in the Mongolian church (Clinton, 2020, p. 281).

In Mongolian missions, Korean missionaries have played a significant role. Due to ethnic and geographical proximity, many Korean missionaries participated in evangelism, church planting, social service, and relief work, with strong support from Korean churches. Their contributions should never be underestimated; however, an unfortunate reality is that in many cases they limited themselves to transplanting Korean-style churches led by Korean missionaries, thereby becoming an obstacle to the establishment of indigenous Mongolian churches (Yamranz & Vanluu, 2006, p. 53). In contrast, churches that actively raised lay leaders, focused on indigenous discipleship and leadership development, and transferred authority to local leaders in a timely manner have become well-established as healthy indigenous churches (Park, 2019, pp. 76–77).

The issue of indigenous leadership development is also clearly reflected in the survey on the top ten priority challenges for Mongolian missions in the Mongolian Mission Index 2021 (Lee, D., 2021).

<Table 2>

Mongolian Mission Index 2021: Top Ten Priority Challenges in Mongolian Missions

(Mongolian Mission Index 2021)

An analysis of these results reveals that, with the exception of the first item, the second through seventh items—all by a narrow margin—concern indigenous leadership development. Even the first item, church planting in unreached areas, is ultimately accomplished through people and therefore relates directly to indigenous leadership development. The ninth item, training leaders in various fields, and the tenth item, strengthening evangelistic activities, are likewise related to indigenous leadership development. The eighth item, cooperation in responding to heresies, also involves leadership development. In summary, the top ten priority challenges of Mongolian missions today can be reduced to a single issue: indigenous leadership development. This represents both the central problem confronting the contemporary Mongolian chrch and a critical task that must be addressed.

(3) The Destiny of the Mongolian Church

In his work The Making of a Leader, Clinton identifies seven characteristics of effective leaders, one of which is that “effective leaders increasingly recognize their destiny” (Clinton, 2011, pp. 29–32). Just as this applies to individuals, a national church must also clearly recognize its destiny in order to become effective. Awareness of destiny becomes possible by discerning the continuity of God’s work—that the God who acted in the past continues to act in the future (Clinton, 2011, p. 34). Therefore, deep reflection on God’s interventions and dealings throughout the history of the Mongolian church helps to uncover its destiny and strengthen its sense of calling (Clinton, 2011, pp. 152–154). Destiny can be discovered not only through positive historical experiences but also through negative ones, because careful reflection on failures often reveals a unique sense of calling. Destiny thus provides direction for the future, drawing the church toward vision and mission.

From the historical background and characteristics of the Mongolian church discussed above, the author derives two dimensions of its destiny. First, the most urgent and essential task for the genuine revival of the Mongolian church is the training of indigenous leaders and the development of leadership grounded in Scripture and discipleship. Second, the Mongolian church must once again go forth with the gospel to the lands once conquered by Chinggis Khan. In other words, the Mongolian church has reached the time to repay the debt of love it received from the Church of the East, the Turkic church, and the global church. At the same time, as descendants of Chinggis Khan, Mongolians bear the destiny of repentance for the bloodshed of conquest wars, even as they seek to reenact the former glory of overcoming Islam and revitalizing the Church of the East through the gospel. The legitimacy of the first destiny is grounded in the failures of the medieval Mongolian church and the characteristics of the contemporary Mongolian church examined earlier. The legitimacy of the second destiny can be found in biblical teaching and in surveys of Mongolian church leaders’ perspectives. As shown in <Table 3> below, 88 percent (69 respondents) of Mongolian church leaders agreed with the statement: “It is a special mission given by God to the Mongolian church to take the gospel again to the places once conquered by Chinggis Khan” (Lee, S. G., 2009, pp. 92–97).

<Table 3>

Survey of Mongolian Church Leaders’ Perspectives

(Lee, S. G., 2009, p. 97)

IV. Situational Understanding of Mongolian Missionaries in Türkiye

To accurately understand Mongolian missionaries in Türkiye, it is also necessary to understand their situation. This is because situations shape spiritual, ministerial, and strategic frameworks and often provide leaders with insight into God’s strategy (Clinton, 2011, p. 262). In addition, Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy identified leaders, followers, and situations as the three elements of leadership, emphasizing the influence of context on leadership (Shin, April 30, 2021). The situation of Mongolian missionaries in Türkiye can be described in terms of easy cultural adaptation, difficult long-term settlement, and life within a bicultural community.

(1) Easy Cultural Adaptation and Difficult Long-Term Settlement

As seen in the anthropological characteristics of Mongolians, Mongolian ministers excel at short-term settlement and cultural adaptation but struggle with long-term settlement. In other words, they are strong in short-term ministry but weak in long-term ministry. In order to enable Mongolian missionaries to engage effectively in long-term ministry, financial issues must first be addressed, because finances are both an essential requirement and one of the greatest obstacles to sustained ministry. Currently, the level of financial self-support among Mongolian missionaries in Türkiye is only about 30 percent. That is, approximately 30 percent of their total financial needs are met by the Mongolian church, while the remainder is covered by support from Korean churches. As a result, Mongolian missionaries are unintentionally placed in a precarious structure in which they may become dependent on the author, who mobilizes and supplements insufficient finances. This undermines the formation of healthy relationships between Korean missionary mentors and Mongolian missionaries. Therefore, financial assistance from Korean missionaries to Mongolian missionaries must be carefully examined from the perspectives of socioeconomic status and social relationships. How, then, can the relationship between Korean and Mongolian missionaries become one of equality rather than dependency? In this regard, Korean missionaries should heed the words of Enkhtaivan and Dugermmaa, elder pastors of the Mongolian church:

At times, some Korean missionaries use their various resources—such as their foundations, positions, knowledge, and especially their financial capacity—to seize power within churches and minister in authoritarian ways, treating Mongolians not as coworkers but as subordinates. Please understand that such approaches can provoke resentment among Mongolians. We hope that missionaries will maintain open hearts and open relationships toward Mongolian leaders, supporting them from behind, trusting them, decentralizing power, and ultimately committing themselves to full delegation (Yamranz & Vanluu, 2006, p. 54).

Accordingly, Korean missionaries must adopt a partnership-oriented perspective that respects Mongolian missionaries and cultivate the maturity never to use finances as a means of power. They must also recognize that the true source of provision is not Korean missionaries but God, and that Korean missionaries themselves are merely servants and messengers. Furthermore, in fostering financial self-reliance among Mongolian missionaries, it is important to shift the focus—following William Smalley’s argument—from how much funding they can raise independently to how effectively they can manage financial resources (Winter et al., 2012, p. 309). Therefore, Korean missionaries should help Mongolian missionaries develop sound financial management skills and, ultimately, transfer financial decision-making authority to them.

(2) A Bicultural Community

The RAN Mission community in Türkiye is a bicultural community composed of Mongolian missionaries and Korean missionaries working together. At present, as they engage jointly in mission to a third group—Turkish people—this bicultural community at times takes on the characteristics of a tricultural community. Historically, Mongolians have demonstrated strong competence in bicultural communities and bicultural communication, largely because the Mongol Empire itself functioned as a bicultural community of Mongols and Turkic peoples. Bicultural communities contribute to missionary effectiveness. Hiebert described a bicultural community as a bridge that enables the gospel to cross from one culture to another, emphasizing that missionary effectiveness depends greatly on the qualitative level of the bicultural community and the relationships within it (Hiebert, 2021, p. 354). In this way, bicultural communities naturally emerge in the process of mission and enhance its effectiveness. Carley H. Dodd likewise highlighted the advantages of bicultural communities, arguing that through intercultural communication they can cultivate a third culture—a culture of similarity—that fosters positive relationships (Dodd, 2008, p. 24). Therefore, if the qualitative level of the bicultural community formed by Mongolian and Korean missionaries is enhanced, it can generate a positive third culture, one that may approximate a biblical supracultural model.

In order to raise the qualitative level of a bicultural community, addressing the issue of intercultural communication is of primary importance. This is because perceived cultural differences—differences in how cultures are understood during intercultural communication—produce uncertainty and anxiety, which ultimately become sources of conflict that hinder the formation of healthy bicultural communities (Dodd, 2008, p. 24). Conversely, reducing uncertainty and anxiety through intercultural communication, while fostering trust and relational comfort, can serve as a catalyst for creating a biblical third culture.

To establish healthy relationships within a bicultural community, practical conflict resolution is essential. Most scholars agree that many conflicts arise from misunderstandings of cultural expectations. Dodd identifies several sources of such misunderstandings, including degrees of self-disclosure and openness, issues of hierarchy and status, formality, work styles, receptivity and empathy, and avoidance of communication (Dodd, 2008, p. 302). As a solution, he introduces balance theory, which resolves conflict by analyzing and understanding personal attitudes and the attitudes of others in relation to clearly defined principles. Additional approaches include applying a softening process prior to decision-making, implementing preventive systems such as mediation mechanisms, practicing empathy and active listening, and employing conflict-reduction techniques—such as avoiding emotional outbursts, addressing one issue at a time, refraining from rigid insistence on one’s own methods, honestly admitting mistakes, taking responsibility for one’s emotions rather than blaming others, and cultivating a positive communicative atmosphere (Dodd, 2008, pp. 313–314).

Organizational conflict is also closely related to decision-making processes. Thus, an effective approach to conflict management is to identify culturally appropriate decision-making methods (Dodd, 2008, p. 317). What, then, is the most culturally suitable decision-making method for Mongolian missionaries? During the era of the Mongol Empire, major decisions were made through the Ikh Khuraldai (Их хуралдай; “Grand Assembly”). For Mongolians, a process that allows free discussion, thorough deliberation, and consensus-building appears to be the most effective, and this approach aligns closely with the principles of balance theory.

Understanding network culture based on interpersonal relationships is also essential for effective intercultural communication. To maximize the social impact of network culture, the principles of homophily, optimal heterophily, and credibility can be effectively employed (Dodd, 2008, pp. 310–341). The principle of homophily suggests that influence is stronger within homogeneous groups (Dodd, 2008, pp. 333–337). As Rogers’ research demonstrates, communication is more effective and persuasion easier within homogeneous groups than within heterogeneous ones (Rogers, 1995; cited in Dodd, 2008, p. 336). Optimal heterophily refers to a condition in which individuals share social homogeneity while maintaining moderate differences in ability and information within acceptable limits. This balance is important because excessive heterogeneity hinders communication, while complete sameness eliminates opportunities for learning and growth. Credibility reduces uncertainty and anxiety, motivates the use of competence, enables people to overcome minor mistakes and relational weaknesses, strengthens communicative adaptation, and ultimately facilitates the development of a successful third culture (Dodd, 2008, pp. 333–341).

Beulah Rohrlich’s research on intercultural marriage provides valuable insights into effective intercultural communication. Rohrlich concluded that communication is the only and most effective factor in intercultural marriage, identifying three ideal patterns: midpoint compromise (spouses agree on solutions located between their respective positions), blended adaptation (elements of both cultures are consciously integrated), and creative adaptation (spouses prefer new behavioral patterns and choose to relinquish aspects of their original cultures) (Rohrlich, 1988, pp. 35–44; cited in Dodd, 2008, p. 121). Applied to the relationship between the author and Mongolian missionaries, this suggests that mutual compromise through midpoint reconciliation, blended adaptation that maximizes mutual strengths, and ultimately creative adaptation that relinquishes individual cultural preferences in favor of a third, Kingdom-of-God culture is most desirable. Ultimately, healthy intercultural competence produces intercultural effectiveness (Dodd, 2008, p. 280), which is also highly beneficial in adapting to a newly emerging third culture.

The cultural gap between the author and Mongolian missionaries within the RAN Mission is relatively small. This is because the author lived in Mongolia for many years and has a deep understanding of Mongolian culture, and because long-standing mentor–disciple relationships have fostered trust through shared life experiences and intimate knowledge of personal circumstances and dispositions. As Basil Bernstein argued, shared experiences enable communicators to transcend linguistic errors and rely on familiar codes, thereby increasing the efficiency of intercultural communication (Bernstein, cited in Dodd, 2008, p. 198).

Within the bicultural community of Korean and Mongolian missionaries, the role of the Korean missionary is clear: that of a facilitator. In 1953, Edmund Hillary, the first person to summit Mount Everest, famously stated, “Without Norgay, I would not have climbed Everest” (Lee, H., 2017). Norgay Tenzing, a Sherpa who climbed Everest with Hillary, had already attempted the ascent six times prior and was the most experienced guide, expert, and pathfinder at the time. Moreover, his physiological adaptation to high-altitude environments made him uniquely suited for the task. Yet Norgay willingly assumed a supporting role—serving as porter, guide, and companion who shared life-and-death risks with Hillary. His role as the ultimate facilitator in humanity’s first ascent of Everest continues to shine as a model today.

The first role of a facilitator learned from Norgay is that of a helper. In the thirteenth century, the Mongol army possessed an unparalleled helper: the Mongolian horse. Mongol steppe warfare under Chinggis Khan employed strategies of attack, retreat, and defense characterized by constant mobility (Khainzan, 2009, p. 40). Sustained mobility was therefore the key to victory, and this was made possible by the endurance of the Mongolian horse. Though small in stature, Mongolian horses possess exceptional stamina and thus became a core asset of Mongol military tactics. This lends support to scholarly arguments that the Mongolian horse was one of the driving forces behind the Mongol Empire’s global conquests. Beyond warfare, the horse was indispensable in daily Mongolian life, providing transportation, milk and dairy products, fermented mare’s milk, and—after death—meat, hide, and hair. Nothing was wasted. The Mongolian horse thus gave its entire being for the Mongols, who in turn regarded it as an indispensable companion. This companion-like facilitative role of the Mongolian horse merits close attention. The horse maximized Mongolian bravery, compensated for their lack of consistency through its endurance, and sustained Pax Mongolica by providing transportation, food, and materials in the harsh steppe environment. Korean missionaries can learn from the Mongolian horse the role of a helper—not ruling over Mongolian ministers, but becoming true partners who supply needs through sacrifice and service, maximize strengths, and compensate for weaknesses in a facilitative manner.

To become effective helpers, Korean missionaries should heed the counsel of Mongolian church elders Pastor Enkhtaivan and Pastor Dugermmaa, who respectfully urge Korean missionaries not to disregard Mongolian leaders as immature or weak, but to honor their dignity, trust them with responsibility, empower them, and refrain from confining them under foreign authority in ways that hinder fellowship and unity among Mongolian leaders (Yamranz & Vanluu, 2006, p. 54). Eric and Laura Adams similarly emphasize that as communities grow organically and effectively, foreign workers must ensure that their own cultural backgrounds, traditions, and biases do not shape the emerging community. As seen in Acts 15, new believers must be free to develop their traditions as disciples of Jesus within their own cultures (Adams & Adams, 2018, p. 197).

The second role of a facilitator learned from Norgay is that of a guide. According to Robert Clinton’s Leadership Emergence Theory, the leadership of Mongolian missionaries in Türkiye is in a stage of transitional processing. This phase occurs as emerging leaders move into early adulthood and may extend into their mid-thirties or later. It involves three tasks: a “release task” of disengaging from previous structures, a “first task” of determining roles and structures for the next phase, and an “internalization task” of deepening one’s personal relationship with Christ. Therefore, careful attention must be given to these three tasks in developing the leadership of Mongolian missionaries who have relocated to Türkiye. Attention must also be given to the leadership development pattern of test–expansion that appears during transitional processing. When leaders respond to tests with faith and obedience, internal growth and expansion occur. God uses integrity checks, obedience checks, and Word checks during this process to facilitate leadership growth and expansion (Clinton, 2011, pp. 174–175). These correspond closely to Holland’s three elements of balanced learning: being, doing, and knowing (Clinton, 2011, p. 192). Thus, integrity checks relate to being, obedience checks to doing, and Word checks to knowing. Accordingly, the role of Korean missionaries in facilitating the leadership development of Mongolian missionaries in transition is first to understand the transitional process thoroughly and serve as guides through it, and then to help them successfully navigate integrity, obedience, and Word checks during the test–expansion phase. If Korean missionaries deeply understand this process and provide appropriate guidance, they can, like Norgay, function as both exemplary helpers and guides.

V. Conclusion

This study has examined the cultural-anthropological characteristics of Mongolians, the characteristics of the Mongolian church, and the situational characteristics of Mongolian missionaries in Türkiye in order to understand who they are. Traditional Mongolian cultural anthropology is characterized by a shamanistic worldview that venerates the sky (Tenger), a nomadic humanistic perspective shaped by close interaction with nature, detachment from trivial matters, submission to natural order, and a strong sense of destiny. Contemporary Mongolian culture inherits this shamanistic worldview, embraces a revived spirit of Chinggis Khan, and is marked by pervasive secularism that values wealth accumulation above all else.

The Mongolian church emerged and declined alongside the Mongol Empire under khan-led religious policies that promoted Christianity within a pluralistic framework. It ushered in a golden age of the Church of the East by liberating it from Islamic oppression, yet failed in indigenization, resulting in a historical discontinuity between medieval and modern church history. Influenced by shamanistic naturalism, the Mongolian church tends to prefer mystical experiences and prosperity over Scripture and discipleship, faces the major challenge of indigenous leadership development, and bears a missionary destiny to carry the gospel once again to lands conquered by Chinggis Khan.

The situational characteristics of Mongolian missionaries in Türkiye include ease of short-term settlement and cultural adaptation but difficulty with long-term settlement due to nomadic heritage and financial constraints; care within a bicultural community of Mongolian and Korean missionaries; the challenge of effective intercultural communication within that community; and the need for Korean missionaries to serve as facilitators—helpers and guides.

In summary, effective facilitation of Mongolian missionaries’ settlement, cultural adaptation, and practical leadership development requires: (1) mentoring that maximizes strengths rooted in nomadic worldview—such as courage, mobility, and patience—while compensating for weaknesses such as inconsistency, laziness, and irresponsibility; (2) mentoring that develops leadership in response to the Mongolian church’s challenges and cultivates its sense of missionary destiny; (3) the creation of a third, biblical culture through effective intercultural communication within a bicultural community; and (4) an application of Robert Clinton’s Leadership Emergence Theory that prioritizes integrity (being), obedience (doing), and engagement with Scripture (knowing) over performance outcomes, enabling leaders to successfully navigate the test–expansion process.

References

Kwon, M.-S. (2013). Biblical community: A family church reflecting the Triune God. Yongin, South Korea: Kingdom Books.

Lee, A.-N. (2014). Mongolian life and traditions. Seoul, South Korea: Minsokwon.

Lee, E.-S. (2001). Mongolians’ views of nature and cultural landscapes. Cultural and Historical Geography, 13(2), 45–62.

Clinton, J. R. (2011). The making of a leader (N. Jang & U. Hwang, Trans.). Seoul, South Korea: Haneul Planning. (Original work published in English)

Clinton, J. R. (2020). The making of a spiritual leader (S. Lee & Y. Lee, Trans.). Seoul, South Korea: Bethany Publishing. (Original work published in English)

Dodd, C. H. (2008). Dynamics of intercultural communication (H. Lim, Trans.). Seoul, South Korea: Grisim. (Original work published in English)

Adams, E., & Adams, L. (2018). Reproducing communities. In R. Woodberry & J. Dudley (Eds.), From seed to fruit: Global trends, fruitful practices, and emerging issues among Muslims (pp. 186–206). Seoul, South Korea: Good Seed. (A. Kim, Trans.)

Hiebert, P. G. (2021). Anthropological insights for missionaries (D. Kim et al., Trans.). Seoul, South Korea: Joy Mission Press. (Original work published in English)

Khainzan, S. (2009). The military strategies of Genghis Khan (C. Bayar, S. Erdene, & W. Park, Trans.). Seoul, South Korea: Republic of Korea Army Headquarters.

Kraft, C. H. (2006). Christianity in culture (Y. Lim & S. Kim, Trans.). Seoul, South Korea: Christian Literature Society. (Original work published in English)

Moffett, S. H. (2004). A history of Christianity in Asia (I. Kim, Trans.). Seoul, South Korea: Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary Press. (Original work published in English)

Weatherford, J. (2013). Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world (Y. Jung, Trans.). Paju, South Korea: Sakyejul. (Original work published in English)

Winter, R. D., Hawthorne, S. C., et al. (2012). Perspectives on the world Christian movement (O. Jung et al., Trans.). Seoul, South Korea: Youth With A Mission. (Original work published in English)

Kim, E.-H. (2014). Mongolian mission from the perspective of intercultural communication: Focusing on worldview. Theology and Praxis, 38, 571–594.

Jeon, H.-J. (2002). A history of Mongolian Christianity and mission strategy. Reformed Theology and Church, 12(1), 13.

Atwood, C. P. (1996). Buddhism and popular ritual in Mongolian religion: A reexamination of the fire cult. History of Religions, 36(2), 112–139.

Jamslan, B. (2015). The revival of shamanism and its legacy in contemporary Mongolia. Journal of East Asian Ancient Studies, 8, 45–59.

Yamranz, E., & Vanluu, D. (2006). Reflections and proposals on the 15th anniversary of Korean missionary work in Mongolia. In Proceedings of the 15th anniversary of Korean missions in Mongolia (pp. 51–57). Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: Korean Missionary Fellowship in Mongolia.

Park, H.-Y. (2019). A study on the establishment of an indigenous church in Darkhan, Mongolia through Youth With A Mission ministry (Doctoral dissertation). Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA.

Lee, S.-G. (2009). A historical study and future prospects of the identity of Mongolian Christianity (Master’s thesis). Hanbando International Graduate School, Seoul, South Korea.

Shin, S.-M. (n.d.). Leadership [Video lecture]. DIS Foundation Lectures, School of Intercultural Studies, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA. Viewed April 30, 2021.

Lee, D., et al. (2021). Mongolian mission index 2021. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from http://mindexw.net/mindex/context?mindex_id=1&context1=3&context2=10

Lee, H.-B. (2017). The secret of Sherpas flying over Mount Everest lies in cellular metabolism. Science Aroma, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, No. 2966. Retrieved January 20, 2023, from http://scent.kisti.re.kr

[1] A missionary of GMI with 27 years of ministry experience in Mongolia and Türkiye, an ordained pastor of KAICAM, and a Doctor of Missiology (D.Miss.) from Fuller Theological Seminary.

[2] An interdenominational overseas mission organization founded by the author in Mongolia in 2007, Revival of All Nations (RAN) is dedicated to frontier mission work.