The R. I. N. Strategy of Missions III

This is part 3 of the series, The R.I.N. Strategy of Missions. This post will deal with the issues surrounding "Non-dependency. It is highly probable that this post will generate discussion topics for the next several posts.

Of all the challenges which missionaries and volunteers face while fulfilling their call and task, it is the issue of avoiding the creation of unhealthy dependencies that has done more to slow the spread of the gospel than any other single challenge. Whether or not we want to admit it, we have all found ourselves at one time or another providing “help that hurts”.

This one issue may be the most difficult to fully explain to those who do not live in a cross-cultural setting. The issue of dependency creating activities is highly volatile and packed with a significant amount of emotion. It is important to note that there is a difference in “interdependence”, where help offered and received meets temporal needs while advancing spiritual growth. However, when help hinders the spread of the Gospel by local believers, we must stop and evaluate the long-term impact of that help.

For example, several years ago Baptist pastors in one of our countries were surveyed. One of the questions asked was, “What will it take for your church to reproduce itself by starting a new church in another location?” Without exception, every pastor responded that they first needed a U.S. volunteer team to come down and build a building.

When a local congregation's level of dependency upon outside resources reaches a level where that local body of Christ cannot be obedient to the commands found in Scripture, then something has gone terribly wrong. Prior to every project we must ask, “Is this creating an unhealthy dependency that will ultimately hinder the spread of the Gospel to those who have yet to hear?”

This topic is much larger than one post can cover or should even attempt to address. Nonetheless, the fact remains that a lot of effort, energy, and resources are being invested in strategies and plans that although might bring what appears to be quick results, the long term impact has kept untold thousands from hearing the Gospel messge. Maybe the best way to illustrate this point is to unpack a common and popular strategy of building church buildings as a primary church planting strategy.

Let's for the sake of argument say that we want to employ a church planting strategy that begins with building a church building or providing a building for every group of local believers who desire to have a "templo" to worship in. If this is happening in Mexico then here are the hard cold facts that much be addressed.

Mexico has a lost population of around 85,000,00 people
If we wanted to elevate the evangelical level of the country from 6% to 12%, this would be one church for every 500 people in the population, then . . .

1. We would need 169,200 new church buildings constructed today! This number grows as the population increases.
2. If these new church buildings could be constructed at $25,000 per church, which by the way does not include land, then the cost of construction of all the church buildings needed would be somewhere in the ballpark of $4,230,000,00. That's more than 4 Trillion dollars.
3. Assuming we could build as many as 100 of these church buildings every year, then it would take 2.5 million dollars per year for a total of 1,692 years.

All of this begs the question, how many people die without ever hearing the good news message of Jesus Christ while they wait for their "church" to be constructed? Even if you could double the number of constructions a year and cut the cost per unit in half, we are still looking at over 800 years. Again, this is assuming no increase in population. To make matters worse, we are only speaking of Mexico. What about China, India, the Middle East, Africa, and the list goes on.

Please do not hear me say that church buildings and construction are somehow evil and bad in and of themselves. If a local congregation chooses to construct a place of worship, then that is fine. It should be done based upon their decision and their ability to follow through with that decision. But as we look at the missionary task as expressed in Matthew 28:19-20, then we as missionaries must look for strategies that accelerate not hinder the spread of the Gospel.

There are many, many more examples that could be expounded upon, but I would like to close with what I bellieve to be the root issue of the dependency. Too many strategies, projects, and trips are designed and carried out with a greater emphasis on what the team or missionary will receive than the impact on lostness or Kingdom growth. Now I know that I am openning myself up for a tremendous amount of criticism at this point, but I would only ask that you understand that my comments are not intended to be critical but to bring to the surface a discussion we must have if we are serious about reaching all peoples with the Gospel.

At a recent volunteer training workshop as dear sister asked, "What do you tell the men in your church when they say, we can't evangelize, but we can swing a hammer? Do you just tell them God can't use them?" My response was as follows. "Ma'm, please hear what I'm about to say is from a heart of love. When I read the New Testament, I don't see where we are given the option of chosing between swinging a hammer and sharing the Gospel with others. What we need to do is train these men how to share their faith while they are swinging their hammers."

The sad truth in many cases is, if you can't take a picture of it or count it, most people do not believe that they were involved in anything significant. We have to come to the point of asking different questions. We need to move from "what can we do?" to "what needs to be done?" We need to stop asking what do we get out of it and begin asking what will be the impact of our efforts. If we do not find workable solutions for the challenges of unhealthy dependency, we have doomed thousands, maybe millions to hell.

In reality, reproducibility, indigeneity, and non-dependency are all woven together into one fabric. If we seriously evaluate our activities through this filter we will better position ourselves to be involved in those activities that will indeed change the face of eternity. It is my hope that these last 3 posts will begin to raise the awareness of these issues and generate more discussion that will ultimately impact what we do.

For a more indept and better treatment of these topics I would highly recommend Steve Saint's book, "The Great Omission". To order online go to:

Amazon.com

I-TEC Indigenous People's Technology and Education Center

The R. I. N. Strategy of Missions II

This is the second post of a three post series dealing with the R. I. N. Strategy of Missions. This post will address the importance of "Indigeneity".

Indigeneity --
Indigeneity is simply asking the question, what would it look like without any outside influence? Every culture and every person in the world has indigenous qualities. Some examples of these indigenous qualities can be described as follows:

The type of housing one lives in.
The foods people eat.
The language they speak and how they speak it, i.e., accents
The type of clothing that is worn.
What and how a people celebrates significant events.
The process for making decisions.

Indigeneity is also seen in how people of faith worship and live out their daily walk with the Lord. Do they meet in a building as church, or do they gather in a house, or even under a tree? Do they sing translated English hymns or sing their own original songs? Does their service last an hour or 3 hours? Do they meet on Sunday or another day or night of the week?

It is in the area of indegeneity that we tend to impose our own cultural preferences upon those with whom we work. For example:

In many cultures around the world missionaries modeled wearing dress suits or a white shirt and tie as proper attaire when one preaches. Today, many pastors of differing cultures insist on wearing clothing that is not idigenous to their own culture.

One can normally track the influence of missionaries by simply observing an order of service in another culture. Many times it will follow almost exactly a U.S. church model.

It is important to note that if a particular cultural expression of a people groups faith is not contrary to Scripture, then chances are good that we probably do not need to suggest that they alter or change their practice, even if it seems strange to us. Indigeneity means allowing people to express from their unique cultural context their understand of God.

Here are some examples of local indigenous Christian practices that are not contrary to Scripture but seem strange to a U.S. context.

* Worship begins at 10:30am and Sunday School begins at noon.
* A speaker is placed on the roof of the church so that the community can hear what is happening inside the church.
* The men sit on one side of the church and the women sit on the other side.
* Periodically, the pastor will stand and read the names of church members who do not appear to be tithing or giving to special offerings.
* Anyone who wishes to sing, share a testimony, or even preach a sermon may do so prior to the pastor preaching.

To understand indigeneity means that someone has take the time and the effort to do research into the worldview of the people with whom they wish to share the Gospel message. A worldview study will reveal bridges and barriers to hearing and understanding the Gospel. It will also reveal gaps in their knowledge that also need to be addressed. Worldview reveals other indigenous characteristics such as heart language, literacy levels, how does a person make any significant life decision.

While we were working among the K'ekchi' we learned that it was culturally appropriate to speak about a person to another individual while that person was present, even though you acted as if they were no where around. What an incredible evangelistic process to witness to someone while speaking to someone else. This is indigenous to them and does not work in all cultures.

Paul recognized indigeneity and worldview issues when in Acts 17:22ff he begins is presentation of the Gospel acknowledging that they were a religious people and pointed out that they had an alter to an unknown god. He also understood this principle when in I Corinthians 9:19-23 he speaks of the need to adapt to others in order to share the Gospel with them.

The Great Commission of our Lord was to make disciples, not North America Christians of the world. If we do not take note of indigenous issues, many will reject not the Gospel but the Gospel that is packaged in another cultures expression.

The R. I. N. Strategy of Missions

This is the first of a three part series dealing with issues that directly impact the effectiveness of missions strategy by career missionaries, volunteers, and national partners. It is call the R. I. N. Strategy of Missions. R. I. N. stands for Reproducibility - Indigeneity - Non-Dependency. I hope what is expressed here will enable others to avoid many of the heartbreaking mistakes we on the field have made over the years. If you can pass an idea or strategy through this 3 phase filtering system without making any changes, then you have a greater chance of success. However, if an idea stops anywhere along the way, it would be better to stop and re-evaluate what you are going to do prior to implementation.

Several years ago at a Stateside Debriefing Conference I heard former IMB VP Dr. Don Kammerdiener state, "The sharper your vision, the more you will say no to." One of the greatest challenges for those involved in the missionary task is learning when and how to say no to good things and say yes to those strategies that will truly make an eternal difference. If we do not have a clear vision of what we are attempting to achieve, then saying yes or no really makes no difference. However, if our vision includes giving every person in our perople group, the opportunity to hear, understand, and respond to the Gospel, then our decisions become a matter of spiritual life and death for those who still have yet to believe.

Is it reproducible by others without outside assistance? This is a crucial question, especially the closer you get to evangelism, church planting, and discipleship. Actually, there are some strategies that it may not matter if it is reproducible or not. For example, we have used medical teams to open villages for church planting follow-up but we never intended these teams to be reproducible by our national partners. Also, many Gospel Saturaton projects may or may not need to be reproducible. So, how do you know if an idea or strategy needs to be reproducible. The really simple asnwer is, do you want others to do on their own what you have just modeled. If the answer is yes, then you need to be sure the entire process is reproducible. Here are two principles to help you ensure reproducibility.

Principle One: Do not do for others what they can and should do for themselves.

Principle Two: Train or teach others to do what they currently cannot do but should be able to do for themselves.

What most people do not realize is that sometimes even really good ideas can actually hinder the advancement of the Gospel to the frontiers of lostness simply because national believers are unable to reproduce the process that they saw modeled or the modeled is dependent on outside assistance. I am reminded of a request that Paul the missionary made in 2 Thessalonians 3:1; "Finally brethern, pray for us that the word of the Lord will spread rapidly and be glorified, just as it did also with you." We can pray for the rapid spread of the Gospel but this prayer must also be followed by actions that will accelerate the spread of the Gospel and not hinder its advancement.

There is a dark and ugly side of not following the principles of reproducibility. This is the underlying message we send when we do not model, train, and empower others in a way that they can then reproduce the same process and results. No one, of course, says these things outloud, but the message is still the same.

"You can't do what we can do."
"Even if you could do it, we can do it better."
"We are not sure that you are smart enough to learn how to do this."

Again, I have never heard anyone say this outloud and most folks would deny having thoughts anywhere close to these statements. However, as someone once wisely stated, "actions speak louder than words". And it is in our actions where we are found guilty.

So how do we avoid strategies that would lead us to implementing non-reproducible methodologies? Here are several ways to ensure reproducibility in your efforts. First, use the M.A.W.L. model as a framework for anything you want others to be able to do without you.

M.A.W.L -- Model Assist Watch & Leave

Model
by showing others how to do what you want them to do
Assist
by allowing them to do what you have modeled giving advice when needed
Watch
by observing them from a distance doing what you have modeled
Leave
them to do what they now can and should be doing without you

Another way to ensure reproducibility is to be ruthlessly critical of every aspect of your process. By this I mean constantly ask the question, can my people group do this, purchase this, make this, reproduce this without me or my resources? If your answer is ever no, they can't, then you have taken a step away from reproducibility. The problem for us is that even the smallest detail may not be a big deal for us but can mean everything to our people group in terms of their ability to reproduce what we have modeled.

I once had a missionary request addtional funds for training materials for his people group. I asked him what the materials were for. He responded that they were documents to assist them in church planting. Then I asked, if he, the missionary, was requesting funds, from where would the second generation church planters get their materials. There was a long silence. It became painfully clear that this process could not be reproduced by his people.

Then there was the missionary who arrived at training events a day early so that materials needed for the training could be purchased at local stores in the same location where the training would be held. Then when these materials were utilized in the workshop the missionary could tell participants where the item was purchased and the cost. Very reproducible.

Another principle to remember when thinking about reproducibility is, "Less is More and Simple is Better". What does someone need to know and have in hand to witness? How much does it cost to plant a church? How many study guides are needed to disciple someone? How we answer these and many other questions determines the level of reproducibility.

Americans like motivational quotes and stories that inspire us. I have heard many a strategy defended by quotes and stories such as these few examples:

1. Practice makes perfect.

WRONG!!! The "right" practice makes perfect. If you do something wrong over and over again you will become perfect at doing it wrong.

2. The seashore was covered with start fish. I came up on a man throwing them back in the water one at a time. I told the man that he would never get them all back in the water so why bother. What does it matter? Holding a starfish in his hand he looked at me and said, "it matters to this one".

Touching and heartwarming isn't it? But if our goal is to allow everyone an opportunity to hear, understand, and respond to the Gospel then non-reproducible models such as descibed in the story should not satisfy our desire to see more come into the Kingdom

3. If only one person comes to the Lord, then it was worth all the money and all the time invested.

This one makes my skin crawl. What we are doing is a matter of stewardship. If I could take that same amount of money and time and adjust the strategy so that it becomes reproducible and see 100 people saved, which is better? We have learn how to spiritualize our inability to do the right thing at the right time the right way.

It is not the missionary task to complete the task of total evangelization of a people group. The missionary task is to begin a process whereby local believers are taught how to be obedient to the commands of Christ and Scripture so that they continue to win their own people and then move out toward their Samaria, Judea, and the uttermost parts of the earth. As Steve Saint so aptly put it in his book, "The Great Omission", "The specific purpose of missions is to plant the church of Christ within every distinct people group on earth. It is then the responsibility of those churches to evangelize the rest of their group." For this to happen, our strategies for evangelization, church planting, and discipling new believers must be reproducible by those believers even after we are gone.

Is it reproducible by others without outside assistance? Remember, it's not about us!!

No More Parts

I do not know what I was thinking when I decided to give a Part number to my posts. Big mistake. It does not allow me to digress and chase rabbits quite as easily as I would like to so I am going to dispense with the Part ? stuff. I'm still learning how to blog effectively.

Why is Missions Education So Challenging?

I want to digress for a moment and ask the question, why is missions education so challenging? Now that was my nice way of asking the question. The real question is why is it so difficult for local SBC churches to incorporate appropriate and effective missions education as a normal part of who they are as church?

Before I start to bend over to gather my stones to throw at others, let me begin by confessing my own shortcomings in years past. As a minister of education in a medium to large growing metro Atlanta church, except for Christmas and Easter, missions did not appear as a large blip on my radar screen very often. I was more concerned about our own church's growth and reputation as a growing church than I was about a lost world. I knew all the resources and I could "push" missions with the best of them from a purely head knowledge perspective. However, missions was not part of who I was as a disciple of Jesus Christ. In fact, I was once so bold as to state that if the missionaries would just listen to us church growth guys, we would have this everybody is in church challenge licked in a few years. I'm not sure I know how to ask for forgiveness for that one.

Having lived cross-culturaly serving as a missionary for 14 years now, I am ruined. The way that I see the world and the way that I view church has forever been challenged and changed. If my wife and I had to leave the field and return to the states, I'm not sure that there would be very many churches who would want us either on staff or as members. We just do not think and act the way we did prior to our missionary service. Please do not hear me say that we are now better or more spiritual than others, believe me, far from it. It's just that there are some things that just do not matter to me as much as they once did. Like who is going to be sure that there are flowers on the Lord's Supper table every Sunday or what color do we paint the fellowship hall.

All this is to say, why is it that the discussion of missions and missions education still seems to be such a foreign (no pun intended) aspect in normal church life? Having served as our regional trainer for the past several years it has been fascinating to see what I would describe as a complete disconnect between what new missionaries have experienced in their church life prior to missions and what we are asking them to do on the mission field. Here are but a few examples of what I am talking about.

1. In our region, somewhere between 80 - 85% of new missionaries state that they have never been part of a new church start. And yet, we are asking them to implement strategies that will lead to CPMs, or multiplying churches.

2. Many of our new missionaries come from an evangelistic culture that encourages Christians to simply invite their lost friends to church and it is at church that they will hear the Gospel presented. And yet, we are asking new missionaries to go where the church has not yet been started.

3. Almost all of our new missionaries have successfully completed numerous discipleship courses and programs both from within our SBC world and from other evangelical sources. And yet, when we survey them, most still say that their greatest challenge is in the area of personal spiritual growth.

4. Over 75% of new missionaries coming to our region have already been to our region on one or more mission trips. Some working with our field missionaries and other trips taken on their own initiative and leadership. And yet, when they come to us and we begin training them in CPM principles and strategies it does not match up with their previous volunteer experience.

My intent is not NOT to point a finger of blame or to cast stones, but simply to ask, how can such a disconnect exist between those who serve on the international fields and those who provide such an incredible amount of support be so great? Why is it that we have not found a effective way of incorporating an Acts 1:8 mindset into the life of the church? My heart really does break when I think that so many with such a wide diversity of giftedness is going underutilized simply because they do not know!


For another example of this disconnect in a home missions setting, go to Kiki Cherry's post.

I lost many years that could have been productive in terms of global missions participation and vision casting as well as what impact this knowledge could have had at home. I just did not have anyone to challenge my thinking and my practice. If you have found some ways that begin to bridge this gap, please let me know. I fear that if this gap continues to widen we will eventually see a razing of the progress we have seen around the world in recent years.

We have one practice that we call our Frontliners Conference. You can read more about this by clicking on the MAC Region Webpage link to the right and then click on the Frontliners button. This training event has proven successful and effective, however, in the last three years we have not been in front of more than 1,000 people, if that many. We need a more effective way of communicating.

Part V continued - What Did Paul Leave Behind?

When one reads the New Testament it does not seem difficult to me for most to see that there were several differences between what the apostle Paul was doing as a missionary and what he instructed the church to do as church. We have recorded in most English translations of Scripture what is described as Paul's missionary journeys. I just have one question in terms of being missionary and being part of the missionary task. What did Paul leave behind after each MISSIONARY journey?

After his first missionary journey, Paul left behind a trail of new believers, new churches, and developing leaders.

After his second missionary journey, Paul left behind a trail of new believers, new churches, and developing leaders.

After his third missionary journey, Paul left behind a trail of new believers, new churches, and developing leaders.

So, how many orphanages did Paul leave behind? How many Christian schools did he start? How many hospitals did he setup? I believe it is significant that this apostle, missionary, established the foundation for all of these other critical ministries, however, he did not become distracted or veer off course from his call and his vision, "to preach the Gospel not where Christ was already named." Romans 15:18-21

When the church crosses cultures it is either participating in the missionary task or a ministry task. Both are legitimate and needed, but they are not the same and unless we honestly deal with this issue, meeting temporal needs will impair our hearing to the voices of those crying in the darkness.

Part V - Good Intentions . . . . . . . . . . . . Gospel Hindrances

I guess it is time to dive into the deep end of the pool, rock the boat, muddy the waters, use whatever metaphor you wish. There are issues related to missions and church planting that just cannot be avoided if we truly desire that everyone has the opportunity to hear, understand, and respond to the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. Let me warn you in advance that the following posts will be uncomfortable. When entering discussions of strategy, it is easy to quickly move from constructive debate to emotional responses. Therefore, in the words of Ravi Zacharias, “It is my desire to shed more light on these topics rather than generate heat.”

It was the socialist philosopher Karl Marx who coined the phrase, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” The same might be said of some mission and church planting strategies. Good intentions and sincerity of heart alone are not enough to accelerate the spread of the Gospel message. And unfortunately, we have experienced too many examples good intentioned sincere hearted strategies that have had the opposite affect from those intended.

To begin our discussion, I would like to list just a few of these strategies that sound good on the surface but soon falls short when a more in-depth review takes place.

1. “If we build it, they will come.”
A church planting strategy that is based upon building severely limits the movement of the Gospel and in fact redirects the focus of the body of believers inward rather than outward. If lost people around the world have to wait until someone builds a building before they hear the Gospel, how many die without knowing Christ while they wait?

2. “Asking the wrong questions.”
When we ask the wrong questions we will more times than not end up with the wrong answers. Here are just a few examples:
a. Stop asking, “what can I do?”, and begin asking, “what needs to be done?”.

b. Stop asking, “where do we want to go to serve?” and begin asking, “where
would God have us go to serve?”.

c. Stop asking, “how does doing this make me feel?” and begin asking, “what
impact will our efforts have on impacting lostness?”.

3. “Scrapbook Missions”
To take the whole Gospel to the whole world means that we must implement strategies and do things that cannot be photographed or put on film. These strategies do not rend the hearts of readers when described in a prayer letter, but nevertheless, they are necessary in order that the reproductive and multiplication force of the Gospel actually takes place. A photograph may be worth a thousand words, but a photograph cannot capture the true essence of disciple making, church planting, or developing leaders.

The road to hell may not be paved with good intentions, but as difficult as it is to say, many are waking directly into hell because good intentioned strategies do not allow for them to hear, understand, and respond. Missions and church planting is hard work and very messy at best. Our task cannot be programmed and placed in a nice neat package that neatly fits a 9 to 5 job or a week long trip.

Do you have other strategies that could be added to this list? If so, I would like to hear them. Our next post will deal with what does work.

Note: I will be out of Internet access for the next week while attending yet another M AGM in Guatemala. See you next weekend.