 |
 |
||
|
March - April 1998 The Editorial MF Behind the Scenes
|
Sphere Four: Indigenous Missions Defined “Native Missionary” Missions. Another derivative is the “go out there and help the ‘national believer’ who already speaks the language, and don’t waste the Lord’s money on expensive American missionaries who have never done it right and are permanently handicapped by their innate foreignness.” Here is a rapidly growing cluster of agencies, highlighted by Gospel for Asia, Christian Aid Mission, and Partners International, the latter being considerably more sophisticated in its approach. In this current listing we have now employed the name Indigenous Missions. That is what these organizations are beginning to call their category and a new association of them is beginning to form. This new name is a bit misleading due to the fact that virtually all of the Six Spheres of mission work are focused on and assisting (and often working under) the vast multitude of national workers which have been successfully produced by the missionary movement from the West. The differences between Standard Missions and the agencies in this category are differences merely of how—how to go about the most effective assistance to “indigenous ministries.” These agencies, too, are “derivative” agencies due to the fact that they can only do their work where there are already believers whom they can pay. These agencies in category four are characterized by sending money and not USA missionaries. The Standard Missions, by contrast, could be characterized by sending missionaries who seek to raise up workers who do not need foreign funds but who will be supported by their own people. Thus, the astonishing contrast is the fact that Standard Missions, in effect, boast how many national workers they do not support, while Sphere Four agencies are proud of the number they do support. —RDW Indigenous Missions Represented Chuck Bennett President, Partners International The number of Christians in the non-Western world has exploded in recent years. These majority-world Christians are usually passionate about winning their own people to Christ. They are strong on people skills but often lack financial and technical resources which Western Christians have in abundance. More than 140 North American mission organizations—most of them fairly new—have come into being to support indigenous ministries and workers in the non-western world. Although the combined budgets of these 140 agencies amount to only 2% of the current giving for missions in North America, they fund well over 16,000 full-time workers—half as many as all career missionaries from the U.S. and Canada. Many large churches and several foundations also give direct support to indigenous ministries. Any way you slice it, this qualifies as a significant new trend in missions. Fully 85% of the 16,000 indigenous workers mentioned above are supported by just six of the 140 specialized agencies—Christian Aid, Christ for India, Every Home for Christ, Gospel for Asia, International Needs and Partners International. Others, such as Overseas Council, Peter Deyneka Russian Ministries, Christ for the Cities, and Wycliffe’s “Seed Company” division, mainly subsidize entire ministries and schools instead of supporting individual workers by name. Most of the remaining agencies are still fairly small. Strengths and Advantages The three most obvious advantages of this approach to missions are that the workers rarely need visas nor take furloughs and they cost only 5 to 10 percent as much as Westerners. In point of fact, however, cost is probably the least important advantage. The agencies that champion this approach are not trying to market “cut-rate missionaries.” They simply believe indigenous workers are usually far more effective than Westerners. They can work in places where resident Western missionaries are not allowed. They are culturally the same or similar to the people they are trying to reach. They understand their values and priorities. They speak their heart language. They enjoy their food and live on the same economic level. Most important of all, the Gospel they present does not seem like a foreign, Western religion. It can put down roots more naturally in the local culture. Areas of Caution The most commonly heard criticisms of supporting indigenous ministries are that 1) it can create unhealthy dependency and 2) financial accountability is more difficult. Both are valid concerns, and both have well-reasoned solutions. Paternalism is an attitude, not an amount of money. If the indigenous worker feels like a trusted, equal partner, then financial subsidy is not a problem. If he or she is made to feel like an employee, then paternalism and resentment can result. Local “ownership” of the ministry is the crucial factor. When it is our vision and ministry and we hire them to carry it out, they will do whatever we require to earn their pay, but they will rarely have the “fire in the gut” to go up against impossible odds and take impossible risks for the sake of the Gospel. But if it’s their vision and ministry, they will. When it is their vision and they “own” their ministry, they are grateful for our assistance because we are helping them accomplish their dream. Mutual trust is the glue that holds these international partnerships together. And trust cannot be purchased. It can only be earned over time. Where trust is lacking, resentment and problems abound. People in other cultures are no more—and no less—honest than those in our own. Every culture has its freeloaders and hucksters. How do we assure accountability and honesty in ministries that we support but do not control? Here are some things to look for. Are you supporting an organized ministry or an individual “lone ranger”? Does your partner ministry have the respect of other Christian ministries in its area? Is the leader accountable to a board (or board-equivalent) that contains respected, objective, unpaid persons? Is the ministry doing all it can to raise financial support from its own people? A good rule of thumb is that at least two-thirds of their total income should come from their own people so that they will not collapse if foreign funds are withdrawn. (Of course, this doesn’t apply to war and disaster situations.) Another area of caution is that deep animosities sometimes exist between neighboring cultures, so a person who speaks the same (or similar) language as his or her target audience, and even looks and dresses in the same way, may be perceived as a traditional enemy and be less accepted than a Westerner. Every situation has its own complex dynamics. Results. Throughout history, the vast majority of all new converts and new local churches have resulted from local Christians reaching their own people. When their efforts are enhanced with money and prayer and technical support from international partners, the results can be amazing. For example, the agency I lead is not large but we support 3,350 workers in 49 countries. They work in 115 otherwise unreached people groups. They average a new believer every nine minutes, a new church every 15 hours, humanitarian aid to a needy person every five minutes, and a local leader completing a formal training program every 20 minutes. Other indigenous support agencies can quote similar numbers. Only the very largest traditional mission agencies have results on that scale. Linking with other kinds of missions. A loose association of about 50 indigenous support agencies has already met twice and will hold its next annual meeting in tandem with the annual meeting of the EFMA in order to encourage more interaction. Opportunities abound for cooperative ventures with the other five spheres of missions, but only if the indigenous ministry is treated as an equal partner. For further reading, see Supporting Indigenous Ministries, a monograph published by the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187, includes several excellent papers on this subject, plus a bibliography and a detailed directory of nearly 50 North American agencies that specialize in support of indigenous ministries. Editorial Comment on Indigenous Missions This category is a growing interest in American churches. For many years donors back home thought that the only Christians “out there” were the missionaries. They could hardly believe their ears when they heard that there were first hundreds, and then thousands of churches and pastors and millions of believers. Rightly done, outside funds can be very strategic for transdenominational cooperative efforts which have a strategic value,often far exceeding the immediate awareness of their value. Let me give an example. Partners International not too long ago gave strength to an incredible vision of a Latin-America-wide network of mission interest. They raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote and fund what turned out to be the largest inter-American meeting of evangelicals ever to gather in one place for any purpose whatsoever—over 3,000 representing every country in Latin America. This gathering in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in 1986 surprised everyone, not the least reason being it was so competently focused specifically on cross-cultural mission to the unreached peoples. Out of it came the present leader of the AD2000 Movement, the incomparable Luis Bush. But, do you know what? Most of the expatriate missions were so engrossed in their own local work they did not even attend. What were they doing? They were busy serving the usual product of missions: Swarms of churches, poor families, pastors needing theological education, etc. Thus, they, along with church leaders in general in Latin America, hardly even showed up at the meeting! Here is a perfect example of how an outside organization can raise money for something that exceeds the vision of the local people, and promote a gigantic breakthrough. On the other hand, pulling in outside funds always runs the risk of something not quite “taking.” The follow-through body, COMIBAM (Cooperaci—n Misionera Iberoamericana—Ibero-American Missionary Cooperation), has had great struggles to get going on its own. But it’s going. And because of COMIBAM ‘87 all of Latin America is aflame with missionary concern. To us “old hands” from Latin America the transformation is very difficult to imagine. But it is true. Well, if there are now devout believers out in the mission fields already, then why send more missionaries ? Chuck Bennett adds, “these [mission-field] Christians are usually passionate about winning their own people to Christ.” This undoubted passion to win “their own people” is not missions but rather evangelism. What “mission-field Christians” are often not interested in is winning their next-door-neighbor tribes (as in Northern Ireland?) which are often enemies isolated by centuries of gruesome conflict and deep-seated hate. Even if such believers are “passionate about winning their own people” and would be willing to go to the hated people “next door,” so to speak, they might be the last on earth to be welcome—sort of like white citizens from Phoenix going up to the nearby Hopi. Yet mission annals often refer to outstanding “nationals” like John Sung who was an Asian D. L. Moody or Luis Palau. Yet, the acceptance by the people of such spiritual giants was not based upon their ethnic similarities, but often took place in spite of differences. Imagine a virtually illiterate Moody holding 5,000 upper-class Englishmen in rapt attention in the packed Opera House of London! I think even the resistant Hopi of Arizona would listen to Billy Graham. But would such a person need foreign funds? Thus, in my opinion, if “inexpensive” is not the main value of such missions, then I would think that cultural nearness would not be the main value either—“winning their own people” is not a missionary role. The missionary who comes from a lot further away often has a great advantage over the one from the next-door group. A great deal needs to be added to give a true picture either way. Space does not allow all that. Two things need to be brought up. Point One: The false comparison between “16,000 workers” being supported for a song while only twice that number is supported by the entire remainder of the U.S. mission budget. Chuck Bennett says, “Although the [Sphere Four] agencies amount to only 2% of the current giving for missions in North America, they fund well over 16,000 full-time workers—half as many as all career missionaries from the U.S. and Canada.” The comparison is very misleading because an accurate account of the work being accomplished on the field by U.S. gifts certainly cannot be measured by how many workers on the field need or want financial subsidy! The missing statistic is how many workers do not need subsidy. My long-standing guess is that about two million national workers (funded by their own people) are out there—a massive chain reaction from the pioneering work of missionaries who taught them to grow without foreign funds. But they are human. Probably all of them would be glad to get some additional support from the States. But those who are leaders in growing churches are able to continue that growth precisely because they are not tied to U.S. funds. Recently a mission executive called me asking my advice about 4,000 congregations in a certain country that had been planted without depending on foreign support, and were constantly in the process of planting still more congregations. However, an “Indigenous Ministries” type of agency began to “assist” some of the pastors financially. After a few years, 400 congregations had been taught to depend on foreign funds, and wanted to pull away from the other 3,600. The executive who called me was not worried about losing congregations to another group—“they belong to God not to our denomination.” He was sorry that these churches were being withdrawn from a dynamic movement in which churches did not need to wait for foreign funds in order to plant more congregations. Another executive commented that these 400 churches, instead of being truly helped, had been “reduced to beggars.” Point Two: Reluctantly, the second thing to mention is that some of these sphere-four agencies deliberately mislead the public. I just received a letter from the Christian Aid Mission. It states without qualification: “In the 50 years since foreign mission boards were put out of India…” What is meant by “put out of India?” More accurately, the fund raising letter could have said, “While at no time were missionaries in general put out, in the last 50 years it has become more and more difficult for missionaries to get visas as “missionaries,” and during those years the total number has gradually fallen from 3,000 to 300 or more, if you don’t count hundreds of missionary personnel functioning in other roles. Presently more than 100 U.S. missions have work in India, Christian Aid being one.” On the next page it says, “Since U.S. mission boards aren’t allowed to work in India…shouldn’t your church be helping…by using Christian Aid as your intermediary?” (Meaning: send your money to Christian Aid instead of to those missions that aren’t allowed to work there.) It is not at all obvious why Christian Aid can direct people’s money better than those agencies whose work has long been rooted in India. The letter also states that “more than half of the people of the world live in countries that are closed to foreign missionaries.” Again, this is highly misleading. Thousands of missionaries work in “closed countries.” In fact, the very phrase “closed countries” is not in general use. We can speak of “restricted access” countries. Even then, all countries make access difficult. Missionaries are in every country except North Korea, whether they publicize that fact or not.—RDW
[ FRONT PAGE ] [ MEET OUR STAFF ] [ USCWM ] |
|
|
