This is an article from the March-April 2020 issue: Movements: God’s Way of Reaching Entire Peoples

Rapid Mobilization: How the West Was Won

Rapid Mobilization: How the West Was Won

Editor’s Note: On page 15 of this issue we highlight the power of the Methodist Movement in Britain. That nation was transformed by John Wesley and the Methodists as people became members of mandatory small group “class meetings.” They came to know Christ, learned to read by studying the Scriptures and singing hymns, confessed their sins one to another and became frugal, hard working and sober. Through obedience to the Word, they became circuit riders and non-professional pastors to spread the gospel even further. They employed many of the characteristics of the Church Planting Movement methodology of our day to very remarkable effect. The following story tells of the similar impact the Methodist movement had in the United States as the country moved westward. Like the movement in Britain, the movement in the U.S. also began to decline when “class meetings” were no longer required and the Methodists began to require seminary education instead of allowing pastors to rise up from the class meetings. See the sidebar on page 17 for more on this.

When the 26 year-old Methodist pioneer, Francis Asbury, arrived in the American colonies in 1771, he believed he was called to fulfill a great destiny. He was right—although that destiny was far greater than he ever imagined. In 1771 there were only 300 American Methodists, led by four ministers. By the time of Asbury’s death in 1816, Methodism had 2,000 ministers and over 200,000 members in a well-coordinated movement. By 1830 official membership was almost half a million, and the number of actual attenders was six million. Most of these people had no previous church connection before they became Methodists.

Asbury, like his mentor John Wesley, modeled the commitment required to achieve such success. Throughout his ministry Asbury delivered more than 16,000 sermons. He traveled nearly 300,000 miles on horseback. He remained unmarried so that he could devote himself fully to his mission. He was often ill    and had no permanent home. He was paid the salary of an ordinary traveling preacher and was still traveling when he died at 70 years of age.

Asbury’s leadership and example inspired an army of circuit riders, many of whom followed his example and remained unmarried. There were no formal vows, but in the early days of the movement the majority of the riders lived by the three rules of the monastic orders: poverty, chastity and obedience. Methodism was a kind of Protestant missionary order under one leader, adapted to reaching isolated communities in harsh conditions across an entire nation.

Jacob Young, a typical circuit rider, was 26 years old in 1802 when he took up the challenge of pioneering a Methodist circuit along the Green River in Kentucky. Young developed his own strategy to evangelize the region. He would travel five miles, find a settlement and look for a family who would let him preach in their log cabin to interested friends and neighbors. Sometimes he found groups already gathered, waiting for a preacher to arrive; in one location he discovered a society run by an illiterate African American slave with impressive preaching and leadership skills. Young established class meetings wherever he went to be run by local leaders in his absence.

Circuit riders like Jacob Young began with limited formal education, but they followed the example of Wesley and Asbury and used their time on horseback for study. They spoke the simple language of the frontier.

They faced ridicule and even violence, with courage and endurance. Above all else they sought conversions. Within a year of his call, Young had gathered 301 new members; for his efforts he received just $30—a cost of ten cents per new member.

In 1776 only 17 percent of the American population was affiliated with any church. By 1850 that number had doubled to 34 percent. Most of the growth was as a result of the gains by the Methodists and Baptists on the frontier. Francis Asbury could never have reached a nation as vast as the United States, no matter how many miles he rode and no matter how many sermons he preached, without rapidly mobilizing young circuit riders like Jacob Young.

The Protestant mainline denominations (Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Congregationalists) failed dismally to keep pace with these Baptist and Methodist upstarts. Having succumbed to a more settled version of the faith and having lost the zeal for evangelism, the message of the mainline denominations became too vague and too accommodating to have an impact.

The clergy of the mainline churches were well educated and refined, drawn from the social elites. At least 95 percent of Congregational, Episcopalian and Presbyterian ministers were college graduates, compared to only 10 percent of the Baptists. As a combined group the mainline denominations had trained 6,000 ministers before the first Methodist minister graduated from a seminary.

Higher education lifted the mainline clergy above the social status of their congregations and turned them into religious professionals. Secularized theological education and social background influenced both the content of their message and how it was delivered.

The clergy preferred to educate their hearers rather than convert them. The clergy’s carefully drafted scholarly sermons did little to stir hearts; they were out of touch with the common people. There also weren’t enough of them; it was not possible to mobilize enough well-educated, well-paid clergy to respond to the challenge of the rapidly expanding frontier. If expansion had been left to the older denominations, American Christianity may have ended up today looking more like the church of Europe—theologically refined, but declining.

So the mainline clergy watched from the safety of the larger towns and cities along the Atlantic seaboard while the Baptists and Methodists moved west. On the frontier it was hard to tell Methodist and Baptist preachers apart. They were ordinary folk with limited education. They spoke the language of the people and preached from the heart about the need for salvation from sin. As they preached, the power of God was not only spoken about, it was experienced. Methodist pioneer Peter Cartwright recalled that, “while I was preaching, the power of God fell on the assembly and there was an awful shaking among the dry bones. Several fell on the floor and cried for mercy.”

The Baptists and the Methodists developed strategies that made it easy for gifted and committed laypeople to take up leadership and go where the people and the opportunities were. Deployment was rapid because very little upfront investment of resources and education was required. Methodist preachers, many of whom were teenagers, were trained on the job as “apprentices” by more experienced workers. They were expected to be continually studying as they traveled. They practiced lifelong learning and graduated the day they died.

The Methodists were centrally governed, whereas the Baptists believed in local autonomy. But in actuality, both movements planted self-governing congregations. The Methodist circuit riders did not have the time to settle down in one place and take control. Their role was to pioneer new works and mobilize local workers to continue the ministry in depth. These self-governing congregations were well suited to rapid multiplication in the frontier culture.

Methodism gave unprecedented freedom to both women and African Americans to engage in ministry. Methodist preachers called the converted to join a growing movement and offered them the opportunity to make a significant contribution—as class leaders, lay preachers or even circuit riders. Some women served as preachers, and many more served as class leaders, unofficial counselors to the circuit riders, network builders and financial patrons.

Large numbers of African American Methodist preachers emerged following the Revolutionary War. Some were well-known public figures. Harry Hosier, probably born a slave, traveled with Asbury and other Methodist leaders and preached to large crowds, both white and black. Methodists and Baptists, unlike the established churches, preached in a way uneducated slaves could understand and affirmed the place of spiritual experiences and emotion. African American preachers played a significant role in shaping the Methodist movement.

The Baptists and Methodists flourished because they mobilized common people to preach the gospel and plant churches wherever there was a need. The Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Congregationalists languished because they were controlled by well-paid clergy who were recruited from the social and financial elite. Early growth was dramatic for the Methodists—from 2.5 percent of the church-going population in 1776 to 34 percent in 1850, with 4,000 itinerant preachers, almost 8,000 local preachers and over one million members. This made them by far the largest religious body in the nation. There was only one national institution that was more extensive: the U.S. government. This achievement would have been impossible without the mobilization of ordinary people—white and black, young and old, men and women—and the removal of artificial barriers to their engagement in significant leadership such as class leaders, local workers and itinerant preachers. Unfortunately, the Methodist rise was short-lived. Whereas before 1840 the Methodists had virtually no college educated clergy among their circuit riders and local preachers, their amateur clergy was gradually replaced by seminary educated professionals who claimed the authority of the church hierarchy over their congregations. Their relative slump began at the same time; by the end of the 19th century the Baptists had overtaken them in numbers.

 

This is an article from the November-December 2016 issue: 40 Years of the USCWM/Frontier Ventures and the Unreached Peoples Movement

Vision for a Refugee Kingdom Movement

Vision for a Refugee Kingdom Movement

God is moving in unprecedented ways in our generation in the Muslim world. Too often Western believers are filled with fear at the pictures of refugees crossing the borders of Western nations. Such a view fails to look at this migration from an eternal perspective.

The current migrations are consistent with the ways God has moved throughout history to bring people groups to the knowledge of Christ.

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. (Acts 17:26-27, ESV, emphasis added)

God has consistently changed the allotted periods and boundaries to bring people to know Him. We should praise the God of heaven in giving a myriad of Muslim people groups open hearts and greater access to the gospel, while at the same time weeping with them at the suffering they endure.

God’s heart is for a kingdom movement to flow through hundreds of refugee locations and then back into the home countries from which they have been thrust—some places difficult or impossible for missionaries to access.

Thousands of evangelists have descended upon Europe the last two years to purposefully bring the gospel to refugees resulting in many salvations. In the excitement of good evangelism, however, what emerges as the dust settles will determine if this becomes a lasting kingdom movement. God’s desire is for disciples and churches, not simply decisions, to multiply throughout the refugee populations, to the surrounding majority populations (e.g. Germans and Greeks) and back into home countries. Will we settle for good evangelism or press into enduring Church-Planting Movements (CPMs)? The latter is God’s heart.

A Case Study

My interactions with the refugee outreach have been to promote the latter (CPM) rather than the former (abundant evangelism). In one country, the Great Commission partners are doing an amazing job of reaching out to refugees with the gospel. They have hosted hundreds of short-term volunteers and the gospel has been shared thousands of times. They have been so busy hosting each team to do evangelism efforts that they have had little time to catalyze the next stages of a CPM—on-going discipleship training, church formation and leadership development. Their effectiveness in doing a good thing (evangelism) threatens the needed shift into the next stage (making disciples who can make disciples, resulting in multiplying churches.)

For three days we worked together on how to translate evangelistic fruit into a kingdom movement. Two weeks later, one Muslim-background believer immediately baptized 18 people and formed two groups into churches. He is making the shift to give enough time to the new disciples, churches and leaders.

What changed in him and others was a sense of the larger vision of what God is doing. Refugee believers have been particularly envisioned by the Joseph account (Gen. 37-50) and find almost exact parallels between Joseph’s journey and theirs. These new disciples stand on the edge of the refugee outreach becoming a Joseph movement.

The Joseph Movement

We may fail to recognize how much of the Genesis account the Joseph narrative takes up. Genesis is painted as follows in broad strokes:

Creation             2 chapters

Fall/Cain 2 chapters

Genealogies         4 chapters

Noah                 4 chapters

Abraham            12 chapters

Isaac                  2 chapters

Jacob                 9-10 chapters

Joseph                14 chapters

In sheer proportion the Joseph story occupies the largest amount of text—14 out of 50 chapters. We rightly accord huge emphasis to the critical stories of Creation/Fall, Noah and Abraham (the father of all who live by faith). But how often do we contemplate the message of the Joseph movement?

Refugee believers are drawn to Joseph because his story gives meaning to their story. It helps to explain what God is doing according to Acts 17:26-27.

The Joseph Movement Parallels

Joseph appears as a prophet in the Quran; Muslims are familiar with his name. But as Muslim-background believers learn the true story from the Old Testament, they find a number of parallels with their situation:

The salvation of many: The theme verse of the Joseph account is Genesis 50:20:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Gen. 50:20, ESV, emphasis added)

From the comforts of Western Christianity, we quote “what was meant for evil, God meant for good.” But can we quote the verse’s purpose statement? The operative word is “to”. God has a purpose in turning evil to good—to save many people. In Western Christianity, we fear the invasion of our way of life in the refugee situation. Refugee believers see the overarching vision—God’s purpose is to save multitudes of people for eternity. The grand purpose of God is sovereignly moving people groups to bring His kingdom fully to them. God is answering the Lord’s prayer we pray regularly.

Embracing the uncontrollables: Joseph chose to embrace the goodness of God despite having no control over his situation and being moved against his will. Rather than bemoan his situation, Joseph embraced the uncontrollable as signs of God’s goodness and sovereign orchestration. Refugee believers are learning to celebrate the uncontrollables as God’s sovereign goodness to bring about the salvation of many.

Suffering: The uncontrollables included intense suffering for Joseph, even being blamed for things he didn’t do. Often refugees are lumped into the same category as terrorists. Often they are mistreated simply because they belong to a disdained group. Refugee believers see in Joseph an example about how to bear up under suffering and mistreatment in the midst of knowing God has a grander plan.

Dreams: The Joseph story is filled with dreams about God’s purposes. God gave Joseph the discernment to believe and interpret these dreams. When God moves in unprecedented ways, He often initiates them through dreams (even in the New Testament). Within the Muslim world, God is appearing to and speaking to people in dreams and visions. Refugee believers recognize that God is speaking clearly, tearing down defences and giving vision for the future to them.

Salvation of a new land:  Joseph was adopted into a new land (Egypt) and eventually became a source of blessing for that land in the midst of famine. He was the source of salvation to the majority population though he came from a despised minority—Hebrews (Gen. 43:32). In the hard soil of European evangelism, God is going to use Muslim-background believers to bring salvation to Christian-background lost people (Germans, Italians, etc). Refugee believers are learning that this is part of their calling.

The salvation of the old land: The purpose of the Joseph story, however, was the salvation of the old land/people. Joseph was not preserved alone by God but seventy others from the old land were saved that they might become a people of God. A vision is growing among refugee believers that God wants to both 1) save many refugees along the refugee road and 2) bring this movement back to the home countries. We must help believers in the diaspora to become movements that bring salvation to home countries from which they emerged.

Seasons of darkness: Doubtless at times Joseph felt forgotten by God, his family and friends. Yet in the darkness he did not despair but continued to trust God. The situation had to get very dark before it got better. Refugee believers take encouragement from Joseph’s faith while in dark places. They know that in time God will bring about His purposes.

A new hope: The Joseph story is one in which a new hope emerges, one Joseph could never have imagined despite the foreshadowing of his initial dreams in Genesis 37. From the darkness, a much greater purpose came to light. How shocked Joseph must have been years later when his brothers showed up to buy grain. In that moment, the greater purpose became clear:

5 And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. 6 For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are yet five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. 7 And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. 8 So it was not you who sent me here, but God. He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt. (Gen. 45:5-8, ESV, emphasis added)

Three times Joseph stated: “It was God who sent me here!” The purpose became clear—a new hope emerging from darkness. For the refugee evangelism efforts to become a kingdom movement, refugee leaders must embrace this new hope—they have been sent ahead by God for the salvation of many. If we fail to call them to a bigger vision or if we shrink back from calling them to suffer for a greater purpose, then we will likely reap a few hundred or thousand new disciples but lose a potential movement to rock the Islamic world.

Don’t compromise: During the dark times and light times, Joseph refused to compromise. As Potiphar’s steward, he refused to sin with Potiphar’s wife. As a prisoner in darkness, he refused to use underhanded ways to escape prison. As the second-in-command of Egypt, he refused to abuse the rank and privilege accorded him. Refugee believers identify with the need to remain true to God’s Word no matter their circumstances—to refuse to compromise or use underhanded ways to better their situation or seek retribution.

Expect helpers along the way: Joseph’s destiny was ultimately in God’s hands, but in the earthly realm was in the hands of others. He trusted God to guide the hands and hearts of the rulers toward God’s ultimate purposes. Along the way, God provided helpers in this journey—Judah to sell Joseph rather than let him be killed, Potiphar purchasing Joseph, the keeper of the prison giving Joseph privileges, the cupbearer bringing Joseph to Pharaoh, Pharaoh raising Joseph to his right hand. Refugee believers have to trust that God will provide advocates along the way to move them toward the destiny God has created for them.

Create relational networks along the way: The challenge of the refugee road becoming a movement is that relational networks change from week to week. Families are torn apart and new living situations present themselves each week or month. Joseph was torn from his family and moved from place to place. Rather than see only his blood family as his relational network, Joseph created new relational networks along the way—Potiphar’s household, the prisoner network and eventually the palace network of Egypt. Refugee leaders with a vision for a movement realize they must help new believers create and embrace new relational networks face-to-face, by phone, and online. As they embrace these new networks and disciple each other in these various forms, the movement is growing and finding stability. 

God’s favor will be upon you: God’s hand of favor was continually upon Joseph. The seed of saving his family planted in the dreams of Genesis 37 was watered all along the way. God’s promise was one of favor and purpose he could hold onto in dark times. Refugee believers frequently ask: “Why did God save me first rather than my brother or my cousin (or someone else)?” They find a growing sense that God’s favor is upon them to be the channel of salvation and this favor fills their hearts with gratitude.

God’s school of suffering: Years ago a greatly persecuted Chinese underground leader shared with me: “Prison is God’s seminary for me. It is when He lets me stop long enough to study my Bible more deeply, write and hear His voice more clearly.” God’s school of suffering. Suffering was Joseph’s seminary. It was the crucible of shaping Joseph into the man who could be the channel of salvation. The Joseph of Genesis 37 was not ready for the throne of Egypt; the Joseph of Genesis 40 was. Refugee believers must embrace periods of suffering as God’s seminary to prepare them for the greater works Jesus promised (John 14:12).

The Joseph Movement: A Vision

The story of Joseph is one of uncanny precedent that refugee believers can learn from. It is a biblical case study for a movement that can be repeated again today. The key will be refugee believers taking on the identity and vision of a true Joseph movement. Such a vision will be as costly to them as it was to Joseph. But if believers can identify this moment as a Joseph opportunity, then it may well become multiple kingdom movements intertwining their fingers both in the diaspora and back home in the sending countries. Will Muslim background believers take on this identity? Will they embrace the cost that comes with the promise?

And for Christian leaders around the world working with these precious brothers and sisters, will we embrace the same vision and communicate it with faith to them? Will we communicate it to our own churches? Will we reinterpret the unfolding events to demonstrate God’s amazing purposes?

If we do, then we are casting a vision of what is on our Father’s Heart.

And, in case you wondered how to cast vision in general, this article has been an example—bringing an encouraging and inspiring word to growing disciples based on Father’s heart.

This is an article from the May-June 2016 issue: Getting to No Place Left

Our Role in Hastening “No Place Left”

Excerpted from Hastening

Our Role in Hastening “No Place Left”

Used by permission of 2414 Ventures.

A few years ago Mission Frontiers featured David Platt’s Radical, a strategic book for mobilizing the church. We are delighted now to feature Steve Smith’s thriller “No Place Left” saga, designed to carry the Church further in the same direction. This excerpt is from Hastening (Book One).


“Congratulations, my imperturbable accomplice,” John said. “We made the Washington Post.”

Christopher sighed as he scanned the headline: L.A. Pastor Speeds Up the Return of Jesus. “Really, bro, you shouldn’t pay attention to these things.”

“They’re saying we think we can dictate when Jesus returns. They’re saying we’re taking Matthew 24:14 and 2 Peter 3:12 too far, as if the moment the last unreached people group is reached, Jesus has to return,” John said.

Christopher studied his longtime friend. “There’s more to it, though, isn’t there, bro?”

“Well,” John admitted, “I’ve had similar questions, lingering questions. We’re gaining a lot of momentum, so I haven’t wanted to rock the boat—especially since I often appear critical.”

“I’m not! I support you and this mission unreservedly! But, Christopher, what if they’re right? Are we trying to dictate when Jesus will return? How can we actually hasten Jesus’ return? This is the question that plagues me. Isn’t God sovereign? Hasn’t He set the date for Jesus’ return? How can we speed up the coming of that day?”

“Bro, I wish you had said something sooner,” Christopher commented. “Actually, I wish that I had said something. We’re getting a lot of kickback on this, so I’ve been studying it more deeply—making sure we’re not off base. And here’s the thing. Of course God is sovereign. And at the same time, we play a role in bringing about His sovereign plans. Think about it this way. Remember when you came to faith?”

“I was quite the rabid dog, wasn’t I?” John said, smiling. “Couldn’t shut up about my new life.”

“Well, not exactly. You were also really, really nervous about talking to your dad about it, remember?”

“Well, who wouldn’t be?” John said. “He was a Rhodes scholar. Tenured faculty. Twice the intellectual—and cynic—I am. And always finding fault with born-again Christians.”

Christopher nodded. “You kept praying, ‘Lord, send someone to witness to my dad, someone with the intellectual faculties to back him into a corner.’ Remember?”

John winced. “Yes, until that fateful day when I realized my dad was my responsibility. It was up to me to share the gospel with him.”

Christopher leaned back in his chair. “Now, think about it, bro. How long did you wait to open your mouth? Six months?”

“Yeah, but I finally got convicted to do something about it. Otherwise I probably would have waited six years, or perhaps even sixteen.”

John paused. “One of the hardest things I’ve ever done was buying that plane ticket to Boston. But you know, after we had spent a little time together and I shared my story, he just melted. I was speechless.”

“Bro, the testimony of your changed life and your love for him was more powerful than any apologetics someone else might have debated with him,” Christopher said, smiling.

“I—I guess so. I’m still amazed my dad’s a Jesus-follower. The cynic now an evangelist!”

Christopher leaned forward. “Now think about this, bro. You were the instrument God used to lead your dad to faith. You wanted to wait years and very well might have if God hadn’t convicted you to speed up the process.

“You and I know the date of your dad’s salvation was set in heaven before the earth was formed. But, in a way, you hastened that day by buying that plane ticket and witnessing to your dad. Perhaps if you had waited six years, he would have believed later, but you didn’t wait. You hastened the day, though from heaven’s viewpoint that had been God’s plan all along. Your motivation fit within God’s plans.”

“God destined my father’s day of salvation, but I became His instrument,” John repeated to himself. “From my vantage point, I speeded up that day by acting in faith sooner rather than later. Someone was going to win him. Why not me, and why not then? How was I to know it wasn’t to be his day of salvation?”

“It was the same when Church in the City sent our first short-term team to China,” Christopher said. “Remember the medical clinics we did in the villages? There were people there who might not have heard the gospel for many more years if we had not come. God knew when He created them when they would believe, but from our perspective, we hastened the day of their salvation.

“Look, bro. Fatalism drove those who opposed William Carey. They told him, ‘Sit down, young man. … When God pleases to convert the heathen, He’ll do it without your help or ours.’”

John chuckled. “Uh, yeah, I could have been one of them.”

Christopher continued, “All I know is that someday God will raise up a generation with the motivation, the wherewithal, and the perseverance to finish the task—the last generation. From earth’s vantage point—whether or not we become that generation—we are hastening that day by focusing on finishing the task. From God’s vantage point, He has chosen someone to finish the task and appointed the times and seasons of their final work. If we are the ones He has chosen, we’re not speeding God up; God is speeding us up to usher in the day He prepared long ago.

“Bro, we’re on solid biblical ground. Solid not just according to me but also respected theologians. Listen to Marvin Vincent’s hundred-year-old comments on 2 Peter 3:12.”

Christopher picked up an ancient tome, gently leafed to the appropriate page, and read:

I am inclined to adopt, with Alford, Huther, Salmond, and Trench, the transitive meaning, hastening on; i.e., “causing the day of the Lord to come more quickly by helping to fulfil those conditions without which it cannot come; that day being no day inexorably fixed, but one the arrival of which it is free to the church to hasten on by faith and by prayer.”

John contemplated these words.

“Will Jesus come back the moment the last UPG is reached?” Christopher asked. He glanced once more at the headline as he grabbed the paper again. “I don’t know. I just know that this is the mission He left us with, and that He said we would finish before His return. I want to finish the task He has given us.

He tossed it back down again and said, “He’s not waiting for permission from us to come back. Rather He is patiently waiting for us to do what He commanded, and He’ll come back when the time is right. …

“There will be a last generation. Why not us? Carey suggested his generation speed up the Great Commission by going. I ask why we can’t hasten finishing this task. By God’s grace I will lay down my life to see it completed. Perhaps God’s plan all along has been to raise up this generation as His vehicle for finishing the task before He sends Jesus on the day appointed from the foundation of this world.”

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

How People Group Information Impacted a Mission Agency

How People Group Information Impacted a Mission Agency

The world is choking on data, most of which has no eternal impact.

Today, we take data for granted. Forty years ago, it was a different story. One Bethany leader said, as he made his way to the mission field in 1981:

"As a young missionary with Bethany International, I was starving for data. Who are the unreached, where are they, are they open to the gospel, how can we gain access to them? I had just graduated from what is now Bethany Global University and was a “wet-behind-the- ears” young leader of a new church-planting team. We read newsletters, read books, wrote letters and made phone calls, seeking information to help guide our direction. Our best data came from missionaries passing through on furlough. We eventually found our place in Asia among an under-reached people group. We may have been one of Bethany’s first data-driven teams."

This article is a testimony of how God used data to challenge an organization to engage more than 500 Unreached People Groups with the transforming power of the gospel.

Bethany International was founded more than 75 years ago with the goal of “evangelizing the nations.” Missionaries were trained, sent out and supported. Passion for world evangelization was great. These workers arrived on the field but still needed to figure out what impact they could accomplish once arriving in a country. There was little information about the presence of specific Unreached People Groups.

The power of data regarding the unreached came to life when a new board member showed a map generated from people group data, with South Asia lit up like a Christmas tree. His challenge to us was to focus on the darkest places, what he called “the edges of the kingdom.” These discussions led Bethany to adopt a new mission statement: “take the Church to where it is not and help others do the same.”

The Engage500 Initiative

In 2015 Bethany, as a member of a global consortium of missionary training and sending ministries called GlobeServe, began tracking church-planting engagements among the unreached. We were encouraged to see we were serving in 269 UPGs. People group information from Joshua Project helped create the initial list.

The goal of Engage500 was to place church-planting teams among 500 Unreached People Groups by 2020— in five years.

At the time this seemed impossible. How could we virtually double the number of UPG engagements in five years, when it had taken at least three decades to get to 269? We had spent much time in prayer and studying the pressing need of the unreached. We knew that God was challenging us to start this amazing journey.

Doubling the number of UPGs engagements required a dedicated team. We appointed Kerry, a missions mobilizer in Mexico, as Bethany’s researcher. He combed through people group data sets for each of the 70 countries where GlobeServe schools and missionaries served. We crisscrossed the globe sharing the Engage500 vision. Each time we met with a Hub, we
presented UPG data for their country and challenged them to adopt and then engage the unreached. They responded by committing to this Unreached People Group task.

The first two years of the Engage500 program were slow going. However, ministry members became more and more excited about the prospect of engaging the unreached. These unreached peoples were often in close proximity to them (though previously invisible to them). The first year we only added eight new engagements; the second year, 12 more; the third year we saw an amazing jump—83 new UPG engagements were added in just one year across the GlobeServe partner world!

As GlobeServe members began to field teams to the unreached, they fed new understanding from the front lines about Unreached People Groups. Sam, one of our researchers in India, embarked on a three-month journey to catalogue the Unreached People Groups where the graduates of their Hub schools were working. Working closely with a global people group list, we discerned the distinctions between castes, locations and people groups. Our Indian leaders used the resulting data for decision- making. Today a significant percentage of the GlobeServe
engaged people groups are from India.

On May 7, 2020, we confirmed the 503rd engagement among Unreached People Groups, a Muslim UPG in northern India. The number keeps growing—today we are engaging 529 UPGs with almost 100 more in the adoption stage.

The Scale for Effective Engagement

In 2017, we introduced an engagement scale to track and better understand progress towards transformational outcomes and Church Planting Movements. We track adoption, engagement, first disciples, first churches and replication, towards the Church Planting Movement stage in each of these Unreached People Groups. Bethany’s work among GlobeServe partners—pursuing and tracking Engage500 and now Disciple Making and Church Planting Movements—is strengthening our own Bethany Global University and Bethany Gateways missionary training and sending. Now our goal is to see 100 movements by the year 2026: again, a God-sized goal where our understanding is consistently refined by good data.

Data, used well, is transformative. Data is “just data” until it is used to spur God’s people to prayer and action. Without data it would have been almost impossible to fulfill Engage500. God used verifiable and timely information to burden our Bethany/GlobeServe members to pray. Prayer then moved them to action.

The lines between people groups are being blurred. The Engage500 lists at times include people groups found in different parts of the same country, or people groups across national boundaries. These can become hidden peoples, surrounded by believers who are unaware that no one is reaching them. In such a world we need data more than ever. Data about unreached peoples helped crystalize Bethany’s mission statement to “take the Church to where it is not”. God used data and people group profiles to burden the hearts of our missionaries to take the difficult step of doing incarnational ministry among the unreached. Data led to burden, burden to prayer, prayer to faith and faith to steps of obedience. God brings the fruit—fruit that remains.

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

People Groups 50 Years Later?

People Groups 50 Years Later?

Dear Reader,

In 1974, when Ralph Winter introduced the concept of what would become known as “unreached peoples” (he used “hidden people”), it would have been impossible to gauge the impact this concept would have on mission thinking and strategy.

Almost 50 years later we can look back and see how profoundly a few simple insights can shape a whole movement.

Today most Christian mission organizations and most missiologists wrestle with Winter’s insight: that there are “peoples” in which there are churches planted and growing and multiplying in sufficient capacity to continue to reach more of “their own”, and there are peoples for which that is not the case.

That insight catalyzed shifts in where organizations sought to place personnel, whole movements to pray for unreached peoples, and also shifts in strategies for planting and multiplying churches.

The thinking began to dig into all sorts of themes and topics related to how to define what is meant by a “people group”. Most (not all) will accept readily that in the phrase “all the nations,” (e.g., in Matthew 28), Jesus was not referring to countries. Many would then add that Jesus meant the ethnicities and languages which constitute the peoples of the earth. Later, questions about other types of “identity” which shape how people determine “who are we” and “who are they” have added to the complexity of the understanding of reached and unreached in the way I phrased it above. Religion in all its varieties (whether religion is even the right word), social identities, the impact of location and thus migration and immigration, and so on, all raise questions about the boundaries of what we mean when we say “this is a people group”.

One of the eventual definitions posited by Ralph Winter was what he termed the “unimax” definition, namely, the largest group within which the Good News can flow as a Church Planting Movement before encountering significant barriers of acceptance or understanding. Thus, a Uni (“unified”) Max (“largest”) People Group is what he suggested be the strategic focus of frontier mission.

Simply stated: identify the barriers, innovate ways to overcome the barriers, and thus reach all unimax peoples.

Of course, the unimax definition is entirely based on the reality that those barriers will only be reliably discovered by a movement itself as it grows to the point where it reaches a “wall” that cannot be explained only by willful rejection of the good news, but which appears on close inspection to be due to barriers that are not intrinsic to the message itself.

This edition of Mission Frontiers is a product of, and a contribution to, a conversation about all these issues that stretch back to multiple writings and multiple intentional conferences and working groups.

May you benefit from these pages.

Kevin Higgins General Director Frontier Ventures

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

Unreached of the Day September-October 2021 (Formerly known as the Global Prayer Digest)

Unreached of the Day September-October 2021 (Formerly known as the Global Prayer Digest)

Click on the attached .pdf icon within this article to read the Unreached of the Day

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

Fresh Vision for the Great Commission

Fresh Vision for the Great Commission

Never before has the Church had as much access to missions-related information. Yet, despite this unprecedented access to information, the Church doesn’t seem to be using its resources wisely and effectively.

Both the number of Unreached People Groups and the number of individuals in Unreached People Groups have increased since 2010. Population growth among the unreached and new discoveries in people group distinctions are outpacing the Church’s ability to reach people with the gospel. There are now over 3.2 billion people in Unreached People Groups. Yet, it is estimated that only about 3% of missionaries and 1% of mission finances are being directed to the unreached, that is, those with little or no access to the gospel1.

 

This vast discrepancy—between the number of people in Unreached People Groups and the allocation of the global Church’s missional resources towards overcoming the barriers that keep them unreached—is what Stratus calls the Great Imbalance. Put simply, the vast majority of missions resources go to places and people that already have access to the gospel as well as some sort of church infrastructure. It is simply easier, often more compelling, more ‘fruitful’ (from the standpoint of return on investment) and more instinctual, to work where the barriers to the gospel are lowest.

Fresh Vision

The Church doesn’t need more knowledge—it needs fresh vision. This fresh vision requires understanding both the global scope of God’s redeeming purposes and the barriers that are currently preventing the Church from carrying out its mission. It is essential that this missional vision affect missions strategy globally, as well as locally. Stratus (stratus.earth/) was created to help provide fresh vision.

In a world where so much information is competing for our attention, Stratus seeks to bring clarity to the vast array of spiritual and physical needs around the world by synthesizing information from 38 disparate data sets (comprising over 200 different indicators) into one comprehensive index. In this way, Stratus promotes a unified vision of bringing the fullness of the gospel of the kingdom to bear on unmet physical and spiritual needs, especially when they go hand in hand.

While information on the spiritual needs (gospel access, people group and language data) and physical needs (systems of governance, developmental needs, social causes and natural barriers) exist separately, Stratus seeks to convey how these sets of needs are often closely related, better equipping the Church to make sense of them within the broader context.

By combining various information sets at the country level, Stratus allows the user to make meaningful comparisons in terms of relative need. Status seeks to help the Church to see themselves as God’s means in overcoming those barriers and meeting those needs. Stratus also provides the ability to easily sort and filter the information according to the abilities, interests, resources and assets that individuals or churches might possess, bridging the gap between the Church’s vast resources and the specific needs of individual countries and people groups.

Where are the areas of gospel access, and where are the voids? Where are developmental needs, like access to education, healthcare or economic opportunities and where is relative strength? Where are high natural barriers, like rugged terrain or a lack of infrastructure, or where are political instability, oppression and war most preventing physical and spiritual needs from being met? What countries are most affected by the intersection of all of these needs?

Stratus seeks to provide concise, up-to-date and visually compelling answers to shift the conversation away from “What can I do?” to “What is it going to take?”

Clarifying Presentation

We want the Church to be able to clearly see how countries rank according to each category and indicator, for example, to see how a country might be ranked seventh overall, 16th in spiritual needs, 66th in developmental needs and 105th in economic opportunity.

All of the data is taken from reputable, pre-existing and routinely updated sources, allowing the data to speak for itself. Even the prayer points listed for each country are derived directly from the country’s lowest-scoring data points.

Informed Strategy

We are hopeful that this tool will become a unifying platform for the Church to use in many capacities, from impacting the way individuals pray for the specific needs of certain countries, to the ways in which the global Church is able to more effectively leverage its assets and strengths to meet the most urgent needs and overcome the most insurmountable barriers. Our goal is to see the global Church better equipped, and ultimately, the Great Commission realized through the rectification of some of the systemic forces that perpetuate the Great Imbalance.

Stratus makes no claims that more data, in and of itself, will right the Great Imbalance or complete the Great Commission. But when data is well-synthesized and powerfully displayed, we fully believe the Church is better equipped to make more informed missional decisions. We echo the prophetic desire of Isaiah, that every valley will be raised up and every mountain made low, that the glory of the Lord will be revealed and all people together will see it (Isaiah 40:4-5).

Explore more at Stratus.earth.

Endnotes
  1. 1 World Christian Encyclopedia, 2020. Travelling Team (http://www.thetravelingteam.org/stats). “World Christian Trends”, Johnson & Barrett, 2001, 2013.

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

People Group Information in an African Context

People Group Information in an African Context

The African Church and the growing indigenous mission agencies are becoming more familiar with global people group lists published online. As we celebrate what God has been doing through data curators, there are still concerns about the accuracy of the lists and the accompanying information. It is worth exploring the various views because many churches and agencies depend on the information presented in people groups lists to inform strategies, prayer, and missionary training. Until the whole Church is mobilized to reach the whole world, our work as researchers is not done.

Why are People Group Lists Needed?

People group lists are needed for ministry tracking, measurement, assessment, and direction. Lists help us identify the people groups with the greatest need for the gospel. The lists bring clear categorization of people groups for focusing missionary work and provide perspective on the magnitude of the unfinished task. There is a need to draw people’s attention to people groups that share similar lineage, language, and culture. Until we know what’s unfinished, we will not be able to achieve the purposes of God for all “nations” (Matthew 28:18-20; Revelation 5:9 and 7:9).

People group lists provide very important information which the Church in Africa has not been able to produce on its own, though Africans are needed to finish the task. Until we see the relevance of tracking all people groups, the African Church cannot focus on nor prioritize well which people groups are unreached with the gospel.

Using People Group Information in Ghana

The Ghana Evangelism Committee (GEC) and Ghana Evangelical Mission Association (GEMA) have helped many churches and mission agencies to understand people group lists through workshops, consultations and recently, the mission researchers forum. The outcome is amazing: many churches have adopted and are effectively engaging many unreached people groups (UPGs). Some student groups have also emerged from these initiatives and are earnestly praying for specific UPGs and forming resolute movements. Notable among them is the Chakali Movement, committed to praying for the Chakali people and sending missionaries to serve among them. In addition, two young missionaries are dedicated to reaching the Fulani as they go throughout West Africa to engage them.

Accuracy of People Group Lists

It is worth noting that the effort and time involved in gathering people group information and the increasingly rapid movement of people, especially rural to urban migration, has a tendency to limit or reduce the accuracy of people group lists and information. Africans consider people group lists fairly accurate, even though there have been cases of differing on-the-ground realities. In some cases, information published is not as accurate as what on-site workers think. These differences are understandable, considering the large amount of data collected and the difficulty of frequent updates. If published figures are estimates or extrapolations, the information will tend to be less accurate. As much as possible, cross-checks and verification ought to be done before information is published.

Are Unreached People Group Lists a Western “Thing”?

People group lists may have started as a Western “thing,” but the Western Church is gradually stepping out of mainstream mission engagement.1 The West has had the expertise, tools and funds for collecting and cataloguing people group lists which serve the global Church. In the past, people group lists were generated mainly for Western missionaries who were sent to serve the rest of the world. With the surge of the Church in the Global South as a growing mission force, people group lists become more critical for the Global South to fulfill its new sending role.

The challenge for many Africans is the source of published people group information. If the source is still Western, then we need to quickly rethink how to overcome that. The users of data ought to be the ones determining what should be gathered.2 Therefore, the Global South needs to be well heard and directly involved in developing people group lists so the results are relevant to the Global South context. Based on my conversations with mission leaders in Africa, when the source of information comes from the indigenous people, it is considered more credible and accurate. Curators of global people group lists have sometimes accepted information from sources not on the ground, which has raised eyebrows in some African mission circles. People group information must be validated locally through in-country assessments. The assumption is that you cannot give an accurate update if you are not present on the ground.

Perhaps the question we should ask is: Is the people group list and the accompanying information representative enough of reality? This is where African ministries and missionaries can be of great help. Curators of people group lists from the West are doing the best they can, but they need to work closely with African missionaries and information workers who understand people groups in their context—their cultural dynamics and complexities.

People Group Barriers in Africa

Ethnicity is an innate thing, and it is still very strong in identifying a people group. People groups who travel in-country or across-country rarely deny their ethnic background. For example, new believers in unreached African people groups are requesting literacy materials in their own languages and songs and stories portraying their own cultures. They prefer not to merge with other people groups. The tribal instincts in Africa are still strong among most people groups.

This does not deny the fact that the traditional barriers of some people groups are changing due to globalization, immigration, and urbanization. This change is subtle among some people groups, but rapid in others. The change is in two forms:

1. Movement from their original location: They have become the scattered harvest field. It is still important to look at culture, language and worldviews of people groups. We all agree that the mission field has arrived at our doorstep, and it is not always necessary to travel to their places of origin. They usually live in clusters in their new locations, and that should be tracked.

2. Changes in their culture and language as a result of intermarriages, trade and educational policies. In some instances, people acquire multiple identities, and others have their culture entirely replaced by another. This is especially true for the younger generation, who have sometimes lost their cultures and languages because of living in urban centers, acquiring new cultures and languages.

These changes do not rule out traditional people groups. But we must adjust to the new changes, find ways of tracking them and develop strategies to reach them. As native languages begin to disappear, people group lists must take into consideration languages that the majority of the people of a particular group speak, and not only their native language. For instance, the Challa may still refer to themselves as Challa, but very few of them can speak their language.

In the next several decades there will be a major shift. We are witnessing new strands of people groups who are not defined by the classical ethno-linguistic groupings, especially in urban centers. They are usually seen as sub- groups such as “head porters”, “prostitutes”, “transnational truck workers”, “scrap workers”, “money changers”, and “auto mechanics”. There are languages and lifestyles prevalent in these sub-cultures. Some of these groups have redefined the barriers of their culture and formed new ways of life, and they are usually closed to outside influence. Perhaps it might be too much information to handle at the global level, but national or local researchers should be able to identify and track such sub-groups and devise the necessary strategies to engage them. They need insiders to meaningfully make an impact with the gospel since these groups are often neglected. Though they are not ethno-linguistic, these groups have a strong affinity.

People groups lists are important, but we need global collaboration to produce credible, Spirit-led information for mission activities.

   
 
Endnotes
  1. 1 Gina A. Zurlo, Todd M. Johnson, and Peter F. Crossing. World Christianity and Mission 2020: Ongoing Shift to the Global South (International Bulletin of Mission Research, 2020), Vol. 44(1), 9.

  2. 2 Maurizio V. & Frances R. & Maria João V. R. The Users of Statistics and their role in the European Society (Brussels: ESAC, 2015), 2.

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

Translation Quality and Scripture Impact for ‘Last Mile’ Bible Translations

24:14 Goal Translation Quality and Scripture Impact for ‘Last Mile’ Bible Translations

Translation Quality and Scripture Impact for ‘Last Mile’ Bible Translations

Everyone deserves to have the Word of God in their heart language. Today, we are closer to seeing the Bible translated into every language than ever before, but significant barriers remain. Over 20% of the world’s people are still waiting for the Bible in their own language (6,600+ languages).

“Last mile” is used to describe the short final segment of delivery of services or items to customers. Last-mile logistics are usually the most complicated and expensive aspects of completing the service or delivery. This same dynamic occurs in completing the task of translating the Bible into every language.

There are reasons for the lack of the Bible in the remaining “last-mile” Bible-less languages. Many of these do not yet have the Bible in their own language because they live in areas hostile to the gospel. Unlike traditional translations of the past and present where translation teams locate in a place and work together for years, outside translators seeking to do translation in politically restricted and/or hostile regions often cannot gain access to these areas. Translators who do have access are often faced with working in secret, moving from one location to another and keeping their work secret from friends, family and the community. Often due to death threats and persecution, translators wait until the work is completed, secretly taking the finished product to partners to print and share with others. In recent years, there have been numerous incidents of translators in these types of areas being kidnapped and/or killed.

One challenge faced in these circumstances is to ensure the translators receive the appropriate mentoring, assistance and funding they need. However, traditional patterns of translation assistance and measurement are not possible. Those of us assisting from the outside must adjust to the new realities and recognize that these men and women risking their lives deserve our best efforts and servant-hearted support instead of asking them to fit into our previous patterns and paradigms of translation.

However, no one involved wants a haphazard and poor- quality translation of the Word of God. How then can we assure quality and accountability for the outside supporters while not risking the lives of those who are at the last mile translating in these restricted areas?

The Antioch Family of Churches alliance of Church Planting Movements (CPMs) has pioneered a seven-step process that has produced quality translations while also giving the measurements and outcomes that meet the needs of the outside supporters. Leaders of 24:14 have endorsed this process and are exploring how to help other CPMs follow this model. A CPM has four plus generations of churches planting churches (parent churches planting children, grand-children and great-grandchildren churches with multiple branches of the family-tree)— this usually means a minimum of 100+ churches and 1500+ baptized disciples. The broader 24:14 Coalition of Church Planting Movements represents 1053 CPMs with over 74 million disciples, primarily in hostile areas formerly unreached with the gospel.

The Translation Quality and Scripture Impact Assurance Seven-Step Process for hostile areas is:

Translation Quality

) Language Selection: The leadership of a Bible‐less CPM discerns through prayer and counsel with other 24:14 members that a translation of the Bible in a certain language(s) is warranted. After extensive prayer and discussion, the language(s) is selected based on the following criteria:


• commitment of the leaders to complete the translation process and make the best possible use of distributing and using the translated Scriptures;
• the current capacity of the CPM and outside partners able to assist the process;
• security for the translators is also a consideration, which is more feasible with a larger group of believers such as we see in CPMs;
• other language‐related movements in different countries;
• available trainings, translation tools and resource texts;
• the need and possibility of translation into two or more closely related languages or major dialects ofn a mega-language.

2) Translation Team Qualification and Recruitment: In each language, an initial group of 25‐30 full‐time mother-tongue bilingual literate speakers are pre‐ qualified by their local church leaders.

3) Translation Team Training/Preparation: A 24:14 Translation Mentor(s) begins training the translation team. Self‐learning tools and other helpful resources are also provided to help teams address gaps and find opportunities for further learning.

4) Initial Translation Drafting Begins: Once qualified by their local church leaders and the 24:14 Translation Mentors, these teams work full‐time collaboratively to define key words and produce quality drafts of Scripture. Each initial draft is reviewed by the Translation Mentor according to the 24:14 Translation Guidelines.

5) Checking/Editing of Texts: Scripture portions are peer‐checked, local church checked and then sent to the Translation Mentors for review. Once approved as an initial draft, the text is community tested through a approved set of questions to help determine clarity, naturalness, accuracy and acceptability. Adjustments are made and tested again. In total in each language, an average of 500 people are expected to be involved in this process.

6) Ongoing Coaching from Translation Quality Advisor: A series of web‐based and offline tools are used to help insure the accuracy, clarity, naturalness and acceptability of Scripture. Throughout the checking process each language coordinator that leads a translation team has frequent access to full‐time Translation Mentors who, in turn, have remote access to translation quality advisors.

7) Movement Church Leadership Evaluation: Once the texts have been assessed, evaluated, edited and checked by the local church network, the community and approved by the Translation Mentors, the drafts are forwarded for final evaluation by the larger church leadership in the CPM.

Scripture Impact

  • A) Commitment to completion, distribution and use ofthe Scriptures is critical.
  • B) Capacity: Priority is given to CPMs because they have greater maturity and capacity to complete the translation and effectively use it.
  • C) Bridging: Obviously, producing a translation that can be a bridge to help translation in other related languages or major dialects will increase potential Scripture Impact.
  • D) Translation Team Discipleship: The initial Scripture impact begins to happen with those on the translation team as they learn and apply God’s Word more deeply in their lives.
  • E) Discipleship: A second avenue of Scripture impact is in the lives of the believers helping at this stage who are deepened in their understanding and application of Scripture by testing and using biblical passages in discipleship processes.
  • F) Evangelism: A third avenue of Scripture impact comes by asking local nonbelievers to help in checking whether these translated passages are understandable. This is an effective way of sharing the gospel with family and friends. Often it is during this time of asking nonbelievers to participate (with caution) that the heart of the nonbeliever is softened and turned toward the gospel. Some come to faith just reading the Word of God.
  • G) Distribution: The next phase is to distribute the Word of God for ongoing discipleship and evangelism. Dependent on the circumstance of the local churches, distribution may be through print- on-demand and/or digitally through microSD cards, audio devices, Bluetooth, off-internet local Wifi devices such as Lightstream, etc.
  • H) Fruit Measurement: We know the Word of God will not return void, so measuring the impact in lives is a critical and often overlooked aspect of Scripture translation and use. Measurement of the increase in both quantity (number of new churches and disciples) and quality (discipleship metrics of transformed lives and communities) are the necessary final piece in measuring Scripture Impact.
  • I) Ownership: By involving at least several hundred people in translating and checking the translation, the community has a strong sense of ownership which will only increase their respect for and use of the Bible.

 

In conclusion, many of the languages included in the “Last Mile” in Bible translation involve some difficulties and dangers that we cannot overcome with the traditional translation processes that God has used so effectively in the past and continues to use today. The inability of outside translators to gain access and the persecution and dangers faced from opponents of the gospel mean that the Bible will not be translated into these languages unless we find new pathways.

It is exactly these high-persecution areas that most desperately need the Bible in their own language. Church history tells us that the Bible in a heart language is not necessary for initial evangelism and discipleship. However, the Bible in a heart language is one crucial factor for surviving and enduring persecution. One example is the longstanding survival of the church in Egypt and Ethiopia compared to the rapid demise of the Church in North Africa after the assault of Islam. A primary reason for this is that Egypt and Ethiopia had the Bible in local languages, while the church of North Africa had the Bible in Latin spoken only by the elites.

God is not surprised by these challenges. God in His wisdom has used existing trade language Bible translations to begin multiplying disciples and churches in many of these “last mile” Bible-less languages. These disciples are positioned inside these language communities and are willing to face life-threatening risks in translation because they deeply yearn to provide the Bible to both the believers and the lost in their own heart language. Additionally, God has allowed us to live in a day where we can strengthen and support those who risk so much by training and using the latest technological breakthrough for translation.

As has been seen, this seven-step translation process not only assures a quality translation but also assures Scriptural impact during and after the translation process. As we observe how the Holy Spirit has already used this process, we can trust and work and pray to see many more translations done until in our generation there are no more Bible-less languages. God is giving us the opportunity to see the world full of God’s glory, but it is a day that challenges us to trust and rely on Him as never before!

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

Are Current People Group Presentations Engaging the Next Generation?

Are Current People Group Presentations Engaging the Next Generation?

Why is engaging NextGen with people group information important?

Barna estimates that three out of four US churchgoers have either never heard of the Great Commission or do not know what it means. Yet, we are depending on the NextGen to be our missions sending force of the future. Something must change. It is critical to engage a younger generation of Christians with unreached peoples.

In your experience, what is a younger generation's view of people groups in general? Is it part of their grid?

Most of the younger generation is completely unaware of people groups being a strategic focus for missions. The concept of people groups with little to no access to the gospel is not part of their thinking. I don’t believe NextGen is feeling challenged, and few have a burden to serve or engage with unreached peoples. More frequently, they feel God calling them to stay and be senders rather than goers.

Are other paradigms more important to a younger generation than traditional ethnolinguistic groupings?

With the advance of technology, interacting with people worldwide only depends on one’s internet speed. For example, a quick search on Reddit will reveal how globalized everyone is, and the idea of a Third Culture individual is becoming more common. Traditional barriers to the gospel are being reduced, and young people tend to feel more connected based on social relationships than ethnicity.

Do traditional people group presentations motivate a younger generation?

From the people group presentations I have seen from sites like Joshua Project and Go31, I can say that traditional methods have not motivated the younger generation. I don’t think NextGen relates to lists and statistics as much as previous generations. Stories and narrative seem more impactful today. As a younger person myself, the most motivation and engagement I have seen has been through personal sharing. I have found others are willing to listen and learn about people groups when I am in relationship with them.

How can people group information be better presented to impact a younger generation?

I strongly believe the presentation of people group information needs a younger voice and brand identity that understands the trends and desires of the younger generation. Fresh presentations need to be made by NextGen themselves. Instead of asking people to read an encyclopedia or look at a statistical website, we need to engage them on the platforms they are using such as Instagram, WhatsApp, TikTok and Quora. Video and discussion forums are key.

What is the greatest need you see in the people group information space?

Unfortunately, whenever I sit in mission consultations, I often notice that I am one of the few that does not fit the description of an older, Western, white male. A key need is creating space for younger Asian, African, and Latin American unreached peoples data managers, thinkers and leaders.

How can NextGen’s skills be best used in unreached people efforts?

Companies such as Airbnb, Uber, and Fiverr have leveraged the younger generations skills with the gig economy model. Similarly, an idea is to offer missional micro-projects that are centered around community and creating impact among unreached peoples. How might we help people redeem their skills beyond the four church walls? Imagine a world where we can innovate ways to bring first-world skills to the ends of the earth.

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

How Possible Is It to Multiply Rapidly and Still Make Healthy Disciples?

How Possible Is It to Multiply Rapidly and Still Make Healthy Disciples?

Is it possible to be both deeply committed to healthy, deeply transformational discipleship, and also to the rapid multiplication of disciples? Opponents of the trend in missions toward DMMs (Disciple Making Movements) and CPMs (Church Planting Movements) often express concern about the rapid growth. Are they truly being grounded in God’s Word? Is allegiance shifting to Jesus over Mohammed or other religious philosophies?

It doesn’t hurt to listen to our well-intentioned critics (Ps. 15:31). Some who criticize do so out of ignorance of what DMMs/CPMs are trying to do. Others have had personal negative experiences that cause them to raise eyebrows. There are those, however, who truly want to see God’s kingdom grow on this earth. Some of our critics raise valid points.

The issue of deep-level life transformation as it relates to disciple-making is something we must be concerned about. It’s something movements should regularly evaluate as they grow. We do not want shallow, superficial movements easily hijacked by false doctrine. Unless movements go both broad and deep, they will not be sustainable. Nor will they bring about the transformational kingdom impact we hope for.

Let’s explore the issue of transformational discipleship further. The question this article will address is whether or not it is possible to see both the rapid multiplication of disciples and churches, while also seeing the deep- level transformation of lives. We will attempt to answer the questions: Can disciples multiply quickly, but also be solidly grounded in the Word of God, its core doctrinesand deeply shaped by the life and ways of Jesus? Can we rapidly multiply emotionally and spiritually healthy disciples through movement strategies?

In this kind of magazine, I assume I am writing to those who are already on board with the idea of DMMs/CPMs. I won’t take time to explain here why DMMs and CPMs are necessary to fulfill the Great Commission. Let’s begin from that starting point. If you aren’t there in your thinking, please take a look at the Why DMMs? article on the Dmmsfrontiermissions.com website.

If rapid multiplication rather than addition growth is necessary to address the issue of lostness, particularly among the unreached, how can we be sure we do it in such a way that we see genuine transformation of lives as people encounter Christ?

It is possible to be committed to both transformation and rapid growth. How do I know this? Because Jesus was. His movement and ministry are our models for all we do. He showed us how to make and multiply disciples rapidly and in healthy, sustainable ways.

Four Failures in Disciple-Making

Peter Scazzero has had a significant impact on my life. If you’ve never read his books, I recommend them. Shortly after going through a season of marital conflict and depression, I came across Emotionally Healthy Spirituality. Many of the lessons he referred to in the book mirrored my learning during that season.
Later, I read Emotionally Healthy Church, and Emotionally Healthy Leader. I am in the middle of reading Emotionally Healthy Discipleship, Scazzero’s newest book. He doesn’t directly attack DMMs or CPMs, I’m not even sure he is familiar with them. As I was reading, though, my mind was filtering his content through my disciple-making grid. I want to draw from some of what he said in the early chapters of this book.

In chapter one of Emotionally Healthy Discipleship, Scazzero writes about four key failures in discipleship.

1. We tolerate emotional immaturity.

2. We emphasize doing for God over being with God.

3. We ignore the treasures of church history.

4. We define success wrongly.

These four failures are worth considering as we pursue rapid multiplication. Let’s consider them together.

Tolerating Emotional Immaturity

Do we tolerate emotional immaturity, or do we address it in our disciple-making and leadership training in movements? What does the word emotional immaturity mean?
Scazzero describes emotional maturity as loving others well. Those who are emotionally mature can have healthy conflicts, talk through misunderstandings and disagreements in godly ways and reflect Jesus in their behavior toward others. Those closest to them and those they lead (including their families), feel valued and cared for. Emotionally healthy disciples are not “triggered” easily. Past woundings have been healed and worked through.

Let’s admit that in DMMs and CPMs sometimes we are so desperate to find the extremely fruitful movement apostle, we tolerate things in their lives we wouldn’t in others. When we find someone who is a “super-sower,” starting many new groups, we at times overlook how they treat their wife or husband or their lack of relationship with their children.

This is a danger. What should we do about it? Keep reading. But first, let’s look at Scazzero’s other points.

Doing Over Being

Movement leaders and catalysts are do-ers. Again, let's just admit that. It’s a strength. It can also be a weakness. Unless we live a life of deep abiding with Jesus, we will not be able to reproduce an abiding lifestyle in those we train, lead and coach. Obedience-based discipleship asks the question: what will you do to obey? This is vitally important, and part of what drives movements forward. Jesus said if we love Him, we would obey His commands (John 14:15). He spoke of wise and foolish builders and said that the person who fails to put His word into practice is like the man who built on sand (Matt. 7:24- 27). This is well established. We recognize it as a major weakness in legacy, or traditional, church practice.

We must be careful not to swing too far in the other direction. Avoid multiplying “Martha” disciples who do a lot, but don’t sit at Jesus’ feet. Model and encourage disciples to love Jesus, worship Him and be changed by His love. How can we be more intentional about modeling being as well as doing in our disciple-making?

Ignoring History

Again, it is worth considering this potential discipleship failure. There is much to be learned from the history of Christianity. Some traditions were developed for valid reasons in particular contexts and may be worth retaining. Others have impeded the growth of disciple- making and evangelism through ordinary believers. We don’t need to “throw out the baby with the bathwater,” to use an American idiom. We need to be discerning, running things through the reproducibility test. If church traditions are hindering the multiplication of disciples, they should be carefully reconsidered.

Scazerro is referring not only to church history, however. He is also speaking of our personal histories. Healthy disciple- making helps people find healing from their past. As Scriptures about forgiveness are studied, wounds from parents, siblings, enemies and oppressors need to be worked through.

How We Define Success

Once more, let us examine ourselve with raw honesty. There are times when we (DMM/CPM practitioners and trainers) define success by something extra-biblical. The commonly held definition of what is a movement (see my blog article What is a DMM?) is not directly from Scripture, nor did Jesus ever tell us to make it a landmark of great accomplishment to hit fourth-generation, multi- stream growth.

Yet, when we finally get to that fourth generation, wow... we’ve accomplished something! Most movement trainers and coaches would not say they define success in strictly numeric ways. I wouldn’t. Of course not. But it is something we need to be careful about. What does it communicate when you are always measuring according to having hit the fourth generation or not?

Some years ago, we had a speaker come and talk to us about tracking in our organization’s annual gathering. He emphasized the gathering of stories, not only the reporting of numbers. The kinds of stories we report say a lot about what we value.

I hope you have been tracking with me and can see that DMM/CPM strategies could potentially lead to emotionally and spiritually immature discipleship. It doesn’t need to be that way, however. Not if we are aware of this, honest about it, and continually evaluating our fruit. Good farmers don’t just aim for fruit, they want healthy fruit. If the orchard’s apples are full of bugs, that’s a problem, even if there are thousands and thousands of apples falling to the ground.

5 Healthy Discipleship Keys

Here are some areas to keep in mind as we apply DMM/ CPM principles in our ministry. They are at the core of appropriately using the DMM/CPM practices. Without them, multiplicative efforts may not lead to healthy, sustained fruit.

Make disciples, not converts.

Many leading DMM/CPM trainers have emphasized this. It should be part of our mantra as disciple-makers. At the same time, our old tendencies can rise to the surface in the rush of a ripe harvest of souls. Simply getting people baptized is not enough. Train them to obey, Jesus said. This is much more than someone getting wet! It takes time, love and investment to make disciples. It can happen rapidly, but it’s a process, not an event.

Focus on people, not meetings.

We need to disciple people, not just multiply meetings. I say this continually when I train. “Disciple-making is not a meeting.” You may have 13 disciple-making groups or Discovery Bible studies happening each week. Without genuine loving relationships and community in those groups, life transformation will not happen.
Disciple Making Movement practitioners must learn to be multi-relational, while still going deep with a few. How did Jesus do this? He had an inner circle of people He invested heavily in. He ate with them, walked with them and took them with Him everywhere. It was far more than a weekly one-hour Bible study. It was those men through whom He multiplied Himself. Jesus both went broad and deep. So must we.

Track growth, but never prioritize it over abiding in Jesus.

Scazerro says in the section of his book on wrongly defining success, “I’m not saying that it’s inherently wrong that we measure our progress by the numbers. The problem comes when numbers are the only thing we measure, and so become our ultimate marker of success... All numerical markers—increased attendance, bigger and better programs, a larger budget—must take a backseat to listening to Jesus. Jesus calls us to abide and abound in Him (John 15:1–8).” A big amen to this!

I am an advocate for carefully tracking growth. Why? Because it’s part of good stewardship.

If, however, we begin to focus more on our numbers than on abiding in Jesus, we’re in trouble! If we start to define our success by whether or not we’ve reached fourth- generation growth, red flags should be waving.

Hold both the urgency of the lost and the transformation of the saved as values.

Steve Smith highlighted this when he wrote about following Jesus and fishing for men—the twin callings (T4T book). They go together. Both matter.

Jesus loved the lost. He was deeply concerned about reaching them. It is not God’s will that any perish (2 Pet. 3:9). The gospel has not spread rapidly because we have not been as concerned about the lost as Jesus is. We’ve failed to adequately fulfill His command to go and make disciples who obey. If we don’t embrace changes, a more multiplicative model, millions and millions will continue to go into eternity having never had a chance to hear of the Savior’s love and desire to save. This is not acceptable.

Nor is it acceptable to be so focused on our inner life that we delay obedience to Christ’s command to make disciples. Abiding in Jesus, practicing solitude, silence, lives of prayer and sharing our testimony with neighbors, friends and relatives are equally part of obeying Him.

This graphic from Scazzero’s book caught my attention. It seems to say we must have deep change before we can have an impact. This was not the way Jesus discipled. Deep change and transformation happened simultaneously.

Instead, as we look at how Jesus made disciples, we learn that they immediately served and obeyed. He sent them out in Luke 9 and 10. Life transformation was an ongoing process.

I’ve consistently seen that those who pass on whatever I’ve been teaching them to others mature more rapidly. They immediately begin to have an impact on their oikos, even before they are mature or have been fully transformed. It would be a mistake to think we have to wait until we have all our issues worked through before we can begin to impact the world.

Keep Scripture central.

I have a lot of hope for DMMs and CPMs because the Word of God is foundational to every DMM/CPM practice. In multiplicative disciple-making, those discipled through
a participatory, obedience-based study of Scripture have a stronger foundational understanding of Scripture than the average church adherent. With Sunday Schools and Wednesday night gatherings becoming a thing of the past, grounding church attendees in the Word of God is rapidly slipping away. DMM/CPM praxis gets people into the word in community. It forces the issue of application to our own lives. Scripture is orally repeated and then immediately shared with others. This is a huge strength in the goal of reproducing healthy disciples who make healthy disciples.

New believers may not immediately be protected from false doctrine any more than a new believer in a traditional church would be. Over time though, within a few years, their understanding of God’s word will grow far stronger than the average Christian’s.

In conclusion, let me point us back to our Lord. He made disciples, who had some major issues. But they grew and were transformed into men and women who turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6). Within a short amount of time, they multiplied and spread His message across Asia. Thousands became His disciples through them and those they discipled in His ways. It is possible to rapidly multiply healthy disciples...more than possible. It’s happening in movements across the globe. And it will happen more!

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

People Groups and the Nigeria Evangelical Missions Association

People Groups and the Nigeria Evangelical Missions Association

The Nigeria Evangelical Missions Association (NEMA) is the umbrella body of the Nigeria missions movement. It was established in 1982 to foster the work of world evangelization by providing a common platform through networking, empowering and mobilizing. At inception NEMA was comprised of six missions organizations but has since grown to a national network with 150 member agencies and 15,000 missionaries serving in 197 countries.

Beginnings

NEMA has always been keen about people group information. Six years after her establishment, the association published The Final Harvest, the proceedings of the International Consultation on Missions hosted in Jos, Nigeria August 11–15th, 1985. Included in that compendium is a list of identified unreached peoples in Nigeria. That marked a significant attempt at projecting the remaining task in Nigeria at that time, and it turned out to provide remarkable direction for missions engagement as well as focus for existing missions structures. A review of this research list in the first quarter of 2021 shows that 65% of the 72 identified unreached peoples in 1985 were no longer on the Nigerian UPG list. Moreover, 85% of the delisted UPGs have contributed to the sending force of the Nigerian missions movement.

Journeying through AD 2020 and Beyond

Thereafter, NEMA gave even more prominence to mobilizing the Nigerian Church to frontier missions. Coinciding with the countdown to AD 2000, another attempt was made at updating the people group list through the NEMA Searchlight Project, giving special attention to unreached and unengaged peoples. However, in 2005, the association’s vision-casting took a new dimension in response to worldwide attention on the 10/40 Window. The leadership of NEMA took a bold step by taking responsibility for 34 mostly Islamic countries in the left side of the Window, with the dream of meeting the Chinese missions effort coming on the Silk Road from the right side of the window.

This initiative became known as Vision 5015 – mobilizing 50,000 partners from the Nigerian Church and training, sending and supporting 15,000 workers to these 34 countries. At the end of the target year review conducted in 2020, 4,000 Nigerian missionaries had been placed in 31 of the 34 countries.

Delisting Nigeria from Unengaged Peoples List

As the Association pursued Vision 5015, a significant twist came into the process. The leadership became very concerned that Nigeria, with her evangelical strength of about 55 million and Christian populace of over 100 million, still had unengaged people groups. This led to another intensive effort of people group information in 2017. At the end of the exercise, seven unengaged peoples were discovered among 73 unreached peoples, all located in the north of Nigeria. This discovery culminated in another very strategic consultation, named “Go North”, in the same year. It would only take 11 months for Nigeria to be delisted from countries with unengaged groups, and four years later the number of unreached peoples was reduced to 45.

Impact and Lessons Learned

Mobilizing the Nigerian Church has been successful using people group information, for Nigerians (and other Africans) are sensitive to people group realities. A random sampling of 50 church leaders indicates that 87% were effectively mobilized for missions based on people group information available to them. Moreover, our mobilization drives have relied heavily on people group information for desirable responses.

To date, there has been much dependence on Western efforts, and while these have been commendable, they have also revealed gaps and limitations. We have had to deal with issues of people group misrepresentation and insensitivity to cultural values and worldviews, leading to contention and occasional rejection of such data. The way forward will be a very healthy synergy among all research stakeholders, with deference given to the grassroots, national networks.

Moreover, in a polarized context such as ours, it may be helpful to present people group information from the perspective of the host peoples themselves. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to rely on secondary sources for information gathering; we need a strict policy to ensure that primary sources receive priority. Where possible, respected and confirmed leaders of such people groups should be contacted to secure endorsement of whatever information is being released to the public domain.

People group information is a means to an end; therefore, strategy delineation should be kept clearly in view as data are gathered. In the same vein, training in information-gathering and equipping the Church and missions organizations in utilizing data is vital. Just as cultural sensitivity and intelligence is emphasized in cross-cultural mobilization, training and engagement, the same is required for gathering and utilizing people group information.

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

More Lists, More Data, More Possibilities

More Lists, More Data, More Possibilities

Refining of People Group Information

Latin America has been involved in the global movement of cross-cultural missions for decades. For quite some time we received missionaries from other nations and then by the grace of God, we became involved in sending. The Latin Church was impacted by the lists of people groups (UPGs and UUPGs) it was presented, and today we can identify numerous missionaries with years of cross- cultural field experience who were mobilized by these lists. Even now in 2021, mobilization efforts employ lists among their other varied resources. People group lists have been extremely useful in their roles of shaping understanding, motivating people to pray, challenging people to obey and causing people to go.

Many Latin American ministries are trying to use more data, working under the assumption that more lists and more data give us more possibilities. This assumption needs to be evaluated on the basis of three ideas: First, the design of any workflow is instructive only. Processes are not linear, and they are not circular; they are complex. Second, people groups present themselves differently depending upon who is asking, “Who are you?” There is one response for the government, another for the local church and yet another for other people groups. This should lead us to be creative as to how to represent them. Third, our big goal for “lists or macro data” must be to reveal “hidden people groups.”

People Group Data Workflow: Steps 1-3

Step 1: Lists as macro data

We understand that the international lists of people groups are more like “macro data.” On-site ministry is an environment of constant change. We know that urbanization and globalization are causing rapid change, and they directly impact the creation and implementation of post-arrival field strategies. They also require that new information be collected in the first months on the field. Perhaps ours is just a different planning model. However, while the international lists and the national lists have certainly been used in the preparation and individual decisions of each missionary project, I have no evidence that lists are being used widely in post-arrival strategies employed in Latin America.

Step 2: Lists and harmonization

We usually begin by comparing the internal people group lists of Brazil with international lists. On the one hand, there are discrepancies that, at first, distance the dialogue between the lists. However, after a careful appreciation of both, we manage to reach a good harmonious relationship. Harvest Information Standards (HIS)1 has been one of the tools employed to help harmonize the lists. When I say harmonize, it is not turning two lists into one. We understand that several lists can be helpful and useful, bringing different views and possessing features that allow dialogue between them.

Step 3: Lists and micro data

After achieving an initial harmonization, we then add different data. What we have learned is that the deeper the micro data, the greater the level of security concern. That has a direct relationship to partnerships; the deeper the data, the fewer organizations are willing to join or share. For this reason, we have invested more in macro data as partnerships, and more on micro data as a local organization.

People Group Data Workflow: Complete Process

Step 4: When lists turn into action

Now, with the lists (macro data) and the micro data from the local organization, we have a good place to begin. We look at our challenges and goals, and we choose which information best supports us.

Each challenge requires different extracts of the same information. Power Users are those who understand their ministry and define how to use the information. Power Users include not only the leaders, but also the people on the ground.

In our understanding, it is the Power Users who define to the mobilization ministries which information can be used in their work. For each type of mobilization— church-planting, Bible translation, compassion—we have parts of the data sets that can help. These ministries help refine existing data and provide new local data.

The international lists have followed people group definitions directed by ethnicity and language, and this has been useful. In fact, it is the main model that we, too, have used. However, we have recently been able to experiment with different views of the data (Dataviz2). This allows observing the data not only by ethnicity and language, but also with different variations that better serve the different audiences of organizations and their different ministries.

We are migrating from the use of polygons to points in geography. We are doing some tests between languages in use and different domains. At times we look at clusters of peoples, and we also examine the relationship of the clans within a people group.

Step 5: Local data and security

Everyone participates in how to understand the data, and everyone can be a user of the data. Each ministry can produce new data that is potentially useful in a variety of arenas. Yet it is important when we collect new data from people who have their feet on the ground that their data be treated carefully, observing security requirements.

Step 6: Updating the national and international lists

After the data is carefully cataloged, we can update the lists in collaboration with the global Church. In the case of national lists, the update dialogues are easier. By contrast, for the international lists the update dialogues are still not very clear. A good example of international lists that add value to the local researcher is the Ethnologue. The “data collaborators program”3 provides an instrument that allows the sending of data, the visualization of other collaborators' data and proof of the support of the national research missionary.

In summary, we are using different techniques, strategies and models to try to meet two great objectives. First, we wish to assist the Church to make the most of data for its activities. Second, we want to bring hidden peoples into wider view. We give thanks to God for the servants He has raised up here in Latin America. May He increasingly empower those who are at work today, and may He bring more data missionaries to work for and with them.

Endnotes
  1. 1 HIS hisregistries.org

  2. 2 Datviz en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data visualization

  3. 3 Ethnologue http://www.ethnologue.com/contributor-program

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

Urbanization and Measuring the Remaining Task

Urbanization and Measuring the Remaining Task
   

For a very long time, many missiologists have tended to measure “progress in the Great Commission” (however that was defined) to some extent in the context of people groups, and how they are reached, evangelized and/or Christianized.

This thread has been pushed forward by the work of David Barrett, Patrick Johnstone and Ralph Winter, who each in his own way pushed thinking and activism related to unreached peoples.

“Reaching the unreached peoples,” in particular, has tended to replace the idea of “a church in every country” as the operative definition of closure or fulfillment of the Great Commission. Unreached People Groups better fit the Scriptural concepts of “every tribe, language, nation, tongue before the Throne” (Rev. 7:9).

The principal motivation behind the development of the unreached peoples concept was the idea of “gaps”—that there were languages and ethnic groups who had “no access” (defined as the reasonable access of individuals in the group to the gospel within their lifetime) principally being shared) or ethnicity (they couldn’t accept what was being shared by outsiders).

However, as we have refined our strategies for closure as “reach the unreached” strategies, two additional issues have emerged, and we’re struggling to address them.

The first is the danger of under-engagement. The principle is simple: we love lists, we want to check items off and so we did what is immediately required to put in a “good faith effort” to remove a people group from the list. We adopt a people group, mobilize a team, send them off to the group,and we remove this group from the “unreached” list.

This is exactly what would have to happen with a “sufficient” engagement, but it’s also what can happen with an “insufficient” engagement, and we don’t always take the time to ask whether an engagement is sufficient or not. A people group of 10 million, stretched over the geographic expanse of a country and spilling over into additional countries, will need more than a single team. To use an analogy, we can engage Moscow, while Vladivostok goes untouched within the lifetime of a single individual.

We may say “each missionary team can only do what it can,” and this is correct, but that represents only a tactical viewpoint. Strategy must think more broadly. If oneteam can only engage one major area within a people group, then multiple teams must be mobilized, and more rapidly.

The second issue, however, is my primary focus here: urbanization. At the turn of the 20th century, the world was just 14.4% urban—232 million out of 1.6 billion people on the planet. The majority of these urbanites (69%) were Christians because most of these cities were in Christianized countries. Just five megacities (population over one million) were majority non-Christian.

In a century, the situation has vastly changed. People moved into cities, driven by all sorts of motivations. Shortly past 2000, the world became majority urban. Today, about 56% of the global population lives in a city: 4.4 billion out of 7.8 billion.

Furthermore, as far back as the 1960s and 1970s, we began to see a shift in the religious composition of urbanites: there were more non-Christian city-dwellers than Christians, as cities developed in the non-Christian world. Today, just one-third of the world’s city dwellers are Christians. This doesn’t mean cities make people into non-Christians; it means that non-Christians urbanized into their own cities. Today the world includes more than 593 majority non-Christian megacities.

An example of this trend can be seen in China’s planned city clusters. They are planning to develop five regional cities, each with as many as 100 million people. In other words, there will be more people in these combined five cities than any other country in the world except India.

Cities present a specific challenge to the idea of “reaching Unreached People Groups”: they are huge mixing grounds. Some cities are more “rural” in character—various languages are segmented in mini-villages. Some cities are more “urban” in character—with lots of different people all mixed together, using broadly spoken trade languages to communicate on the job and in the markets. Whichever is the case, focusing on a city raises different strategic issues than focusing on a single people group or a language group largely spoken in a particular province or set of provinces. It brings the cross-cultural and cross-language dimensions of the task to bear in multiple ways earlier on. This means that including “cities” as segments to be listed, focused on, described, researched, documented, tracked, measured,and strategically engaged is probably just as important as “Unreached People Groups.”

We don’t want to lose the “unreached peoples” focus. But we must remember: the whole reason people have passionately advocated for the unreached is out of concern for gaps—collections of individuals who did not have gospel access. An exclusive focus on Unreached People Groups could, in fact, lead us to focus on, for example, Kazakhs, to the exclusion of very small groups (e.g., the thousand or so Avar in Kazakhstan) or diaspora groups int he same cities (e.g., Buryats).

Not every gap can be tracked at the global level. But global lists could continue to identify where gaps are potentially located. Different kinds of gaps can be found in cities than amongst unreached groups, and that means we need to give cities similar attention and effort.

 

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

Why South Asia People Group Data Looks So Different

Why South Asia People Group Data Looks So Different

South Asia people groups are not ethnolinguistic

People group lists historically have used two factors to identify each people group: language spoken and ethnicity, where “ethnicity” is defined broadly. Such lists may be referred to as ethno-linguistic because both factors were used to form the lists.

However, in practice, language spoken has been given more, if not exclusive, emphasis than ethnicity as people groups were identified. This emphasis on language spoken has worked reasonably well in most parts of the world, but it does not work well in South Asia.

The South Asia people group data is not ethno-linguistic if by that term we mean a list of language groups and subdivisions of language groups. A very different approach is used for South Asia.

Language groups vs. people groups / communities

The classic definition of a people group is “For evangelization purposes, a people group is the largest group within which the gospel can spread as a Church Planting Movement without encountering barriers of understanding or acceptance."

Outside South Asia the approach is to emphasize the understandability portion of the people group definition. This approach produces a list of people groups identified first and foremost by language spoken and may involve subdivisions of language groups.

However, in South Asia the approach is to define people groups consistent with the strongly held sense of “community” pervasive in that region. The term community does not refer to a physical location, but rather caste or social grouping within a structured hierarchy. The Indian term is jati. Barriers between communities/castes determine who one can associate with, share a meal with, marry, what homes one might enter, what occupation one might have, religious tradition and much more. This has profound impact on defining people groups and on church-planting. South Asian communities are the largest practical identity in which the gospel can take root and spread through relational pathways and means. The community perspective emphasizes acceptance barriers in the traditional definition of people group. Self-identification rather than language is the key determinate in defining South Asian people groups.

Relationship between South Asian people groups and languages spoken

In South Asia, individuals and people groups are typically multi-lingual. Quite often, languages spoken do not identify the community an individual or people group is part of. This many-to- many relationship between people groups and languages creates a highly complex situation. People group websites show only a very simplified presentation of this complexity. However, detailed South Asia district-level people group, language and religion data is available.

Importance of self-identification

A goal for South Asia researchers has been to consistently identify people groups by how individuals identify themselves. An illustration of this perspective can be seen in one definition for Aboriginal used in Australia: “An Aboriginal is one who identifies as an Aboriginal, and who is perceived as belonging to an Aboriginal community by the Aboriginal community”. In South Asia, individuals typically know the community they have been born into, and this is how they identify themselves to census and other government inquiries. This approach helps to identify the groupings through which the gospel message is most likely to flow without encountering significant barriers of acceptance. It is important to avoid identifications imposed from outside the communities themselves.

This self-identification produces a much more granular list with many more people group entries for South Asia. Outsiders may only see broad classifications such as Jat, Rajput, Brahmin or Pashtun and not see the distinctions and barriers between self-identified communities. It might take years of humble observation for an outsider to truly understand the difference between, for example, the Chetti Bania and Srimali Bania.

Toward a “unimax” list

Dave Datema and Kevin Higgins touch on the “unimax” view of people groups in their articles in this issue. A unimax people is “the maximum-sized group sufficiently unified to be the target of a single people movement to Christ”. South Asia people group data is based on self- identification and barriers beyond language which is a significant step toward a unimax view of South Asian peoples.

Long-term, on-site research is needed to fully identify unimax peoples. Current South Asia people group lists provide an excellent starting point for workers seeking to understand local realities. Certainly, there will be cases where two or more communities need to be merged on a list to better conform to what is discovered, or perhaps one community needs to be split to form several communities.

Current South Asia people group data is not perfect, but it has integrity and is faithful to the people who have collected, collated and published it over past decades. It is generally consistent with how individuals in South Asia identify their own communities. Caste cohesiveness may be diminishing, especially in urban areas, yet self-awareness of the community a person has been born into remains reasonably strong in most of South Asia.

The Joshua Project website is utilized by many more from India than any other country, including the United States. It is not unusual for an Indian to write saying such things as “my community is larger than that,” or “you should modify the name of my community.” However, very rarely have any users raised objections to the overall approach and presentation of the people groups of South Asia.

The non-ethnolinguistic, self-identification-based, granular, unimax nature of South Asian people group data makes it very different from the people group data in the rest of the world. Thankfully, the Lord has provided a remarkably rich dataset for the most complex people group situation in the world. May it be used to advance His kingdom in South Asia.

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

Seeing the Unreached World As It Really Is

Seeing the Unreached World As It Really Is

People group research is not a fixed science. Rather, it is a constantly changing dynamo of motion as people groups move, assimilate into other cultures, regain and lose their languages, come to Christ and fall away from the faith.

As a result, a continually updated people group list is essential for decision-making in the mission world. Lists help believers gain a clearer picture of the remaining task of world evangelization that is so dear to the heart of God.

I have been engaged in mission research in Asia since the 1980s. For much of that time I have wrestled with the ethno-linguistic realities of what we found on the mission field vs. what governments and the Body of Christ have acknowledged. This disparity presents challenges for the cause of the gospel.

In the late 1990s I wrote a book profiling all the tribes, peoples and languages of Laos. The Lao government amusingly insists there are just three groups of people in the country, based on elevation(!)—those who live on the plains, in the hills and in the high mountains. Our book was revolutionary in that it profiled and mapped 117 distinct people groups in Laos. Today, the number has grown to 127 groups according to the latest Joshua Project data.

A few years later we released Operation China, which profiled and mapped 490 distinct ethno-linguistic groups in China. Joshua Project now lists 545 distinct people groups in China, as new research over the years has brought the existence of new groups and languages into the light.

The Chinese government to this day, however, recognizes only 56 ethnic groups within its borders, and most Christians I have met—both in China and overseas— prefer to use those broad artificial classifications because they are more manageable.

This approach is clearly flawed, however, as countless groups have been lumped together in these official categories, yet have little in common. Two groups may hardly speak a word of each other's language, refuse to intermarry and proudly possess their own unique histories, customs and identities.

For example, the official "Miao" nationality in China actually contains more than 50 distinct tribes, of which five or six are strongly Christian, and the remainder unreached. Many believers have assumed that the Christian Miao can reach the other groups, but for more than a century this assumption has largely proven false.

A believer from the A-Hmao tribe will struggle greatly if they try to reach the two million Hmu people, who live just a few hours away in the same province. I have been present when gospel audio recordings and the Jesus film in one Miao language were played to Miao in another group, leaving them with completely bemused looks on their faces.

The language differences between such groups are sometimes as broad as those between European languages like English, French, German and Spanish. The "Yi" nationality in China is even more complex, with 85 distinct tribes speaking their own distinct languages. At least 30 tribes have been combined together to form the official “Yao” nationality.

There are clearly hundreds more ethnic groups and languages than what some ministries acknowledge in India, Nepal, Myanmar, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The 1931 British census reported 37 distinct Kuki Chin tribes in Burma (now Myanmar) and another 13 in India.

Within those were strings of spoken languages, with some districts having as many as 20 distinct languages. These peoples and languages have not vanished, but some sources do not see any point in “slicing the pie” so thin, so they view the Kuki Chin as one cohesive group, which they are not.

A Troubling Development

Most alarmingly, in recent years there appears to have been a push by some in the mission world to ignore reality and to imagine the task is simpler than it really is. The aim seems to be to try to reduce the size and complexity of what remains to be done. I fear the motive for this may often be a misguided bid to please some donors who have grown weary of hearing about thousands of Unreached People Groups in the world; our data contradict the mantra that we will soon complete the Great Commission.

Manipulating statistics, altering definitions and reducing the number of Unreached People Groups by pushing a “delete” button will never help reach lost people for Christ, and millions of people may go without the Word of God in their language because mission agencies don't have the courage to acknowledge the true situation.

I encourage every believer and ministry leader to put aside mission politics and funding pressures, and to realize that the Lord Jesus is the Truth. If we can't accept the reality of the situation facing us, we risk falling into the trap of deception.

On the field, many church leaders have grown confused and disengaged because of the games Western ministries play with data. This has led to some ludicrous situations. Last year a good friend from Nepal—who is doing outstanding ministry in more than two dozen totally unreached tribes in the high Himalayas—attended a mission conference in the United States, where he was told that Nepal no longer has any unreached groups! In effect, he was told that the job has been completed in Nepal, and he should relax and live in the delusion that the tribes he has given his life to reach really aren’t unreached!

Decades ago, God used Dr. Ralph Winter to change the discourse of mission work, when he explained that the world is not like a flat pancake, where the syrup flows easily over the whole surface. Rather, he described the world as being like a waffle, with walls between distinct sections that must be broken down before the syrup can flow into those areas.

The number of unreached ethnic groups and languages in the world will be reduced as Christians share the gospel with them and as communities of redeemed believers emerge, and not by covering our eyes and ears and imagining that hundreds of groups and languages don't exist as we squeeze them together for administrative convenience.

The Gospel is Advancing

Regardless of what men may do, God is still on the move among the unreached!

Over the years, we have been cheered by seeing amazing progress among many groups. The 57,000 Mosuo of southwest China were a completely unknown people group until they were mentioned in a National Geographic article about 30 years ago. Believers visited and found them to be completely unevangelized and without a single known Christian in their midst. Today there are approximately 3,000 Mosuo believers, and at least one house church in every Mosuo village. Hallelujah!

One example of how people group research has helped reach the lost occurred in Laos. Beginning in the 1990s, thousands of Khmu people in northern Laos experienced a powerful turning to the Lord. Touched by the Spirit of God, many Khmu believers desired to take the gospel to other tribes that had never heard of Jesus, but they were only aware of the ethnicities in their immediate areas, and they knew little about the ethnic composition of the rest of their country.

Today, partly thanks to the influence of people group lists, dozens of Khmu missionaries are serving in southern Laos and even in surrounding countries. As a result, a number of previously unevangelized groups have gradually made progress from unreached to the list of those who have embraced the gospel and now have a growing church.

Part of our call at Asia Harvest is to help local believers get the gospel moving among unreached groups. Today, it’s humbling to look back and see how the Holy Spirit has enabled a small ministry to come alongside the Asian Church. Currently, we are privileged to support more than 1,500 Asian missionaries, who serve among 1,150 different ethnic groups. Hundreds more groups still need attention so that people will be transformed from the kingdom of darkness into God’s light.

A Reminder of Who Owns the Harvest

In recent decades, the world has been rapidly changing via technological advances and the increase of information. As we continue to progress toward the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and the end of the Great Commission, let us remember that the salvation of people from every fragment of humanity is not our idea. Rather, it is the plan of the living God from before the foundations of the earth.

Then I saw another angel flying in mid-air, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people." —Revelation 14:6

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

People Group Lists and the Challenge of Growing Complexity

People Group Lists and the Challenge of Growing Complexity

A Brief History of Global People Group Lists

No comprehensive, global list of people groups existed when Dr. Ralph Winter gave his landmark presentation at Lausanne ’74. Partial lists began to be developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Since then, three global people group lists have emerged:

  • Center for the Study of Global Christianity’s World Christian Database (WCD)
  • International Mission Board SBC’s Church Planting Progress Indicators (CPPI) database
  • Joshua Project (JP) database

These three lists have different definitions, sources, purposes and audiences as outlined in the table below.

Why Three Global Peoples Lists?

Looking at a picture from several angles often yields greater perspective. Using different definitions and criteria can help clarify a task and highlight areas needing further research. Global people group data compilers are confronted by questions such as: Is language always the primary definer of a people group? Should caste be considered when defining a people group? Should Christian adherents be considered when setting criteria for unreached? Should unreached be defined by exposure or response to the gospel? What are acceptable sources for input and edits?

A Growing Challenge

There is an increasing interest and call, particularly from on-site workers, to add further levels of refinement to people group data. This greater granularity can take two forms. One refinement would be increasingly finer slices of traditional people groups. This would involve tracking traditional people groups by province or district, subgroup, religious tradition and/or dialect.

A second, very different refinement being suggested is complete reconfiguring and mixing of traditional people groups into dynamic or hybrid identities. Distinctives of these hybrid groups might be by occupation, shared interests, skills, education, networks and/or social status. This represents a quantum leap in complexity.

Granularity and Complexity

Graph 1 illustrates the relationship between people group list granularity and complexity. The chart is divided into three sections. Very general uses are suggested for each section. The numbers in parentheses are counts from the Joshua Project list as of June 2021. Current numbers may be slightly different. Groups to the left of the dotted line would be considered traditional people groups and groups to the right would be considered dynamic, hybrid groupings or “unimax” peoples.

Consider the Fulani of Central Africa. Moving from left to right across Graph 1 on the previous page, the Fulani can be viewed as a single People Cluster4. This level does not distinguish specific Fulani people groups and combines 40 million individuals into one category. Typically, this is the level of granularity used by the secular media and general missions education material. To protect believers, movements to Jesus among the Fulani are reported at this broader level. However, a church adopting a people group for prayer and engagement needs greater detail and a smaller size group to focus on. The church would likely adopt a specific Fulani people group such as the Pulaar Fulani, in Senegal5. As workers begin on-site ministry, they might focus on the Toucouleur dialect- speaking, millennial age, healthcare professional Pulaar Fulani living in Matam, Senegal. This would be a hybrid grouping. The “glue” that holds such a hybrid group together goes well beyond ethnicity and language.

Changing Barriers and Shifting Boundaries

From a church-planting perspective, people group boundaries are defined by barriers to the spread of the gospel. The highest barriers define the extent of a people group. In some parts of the world, changing barriers are rapidly causing a shift from traditional people groups to dynamic or hybrid groupings. Table 2 compares these perspectives.

Existing people group identities are being mixed and recombined, and new hybrid identities are being created. For example, language consolidation is reducing the language barrier that traditionally has defined many people groups. Speakers of smaller languages are rapidly learning one or more global languages, usually for education and job opportunities. These are often languages widely used on the internet. New mobile devices are allowing on-the-fly, real-time translation. A rise in linguistic nationalism results in merger of people groups together through governmental pressure. At the same time, some people groups are dividing over a desire to preserve language and its cultural contexts. Few boundaries are truly rigid; the edges have fluidity.

Urbanization and migration are reducing ethnicity barriers. Groupings of individuals in cities are increasingly being driven by occupation, shared interests, skills, education, networks, social status and activities rather than by ethnic background or language. Globalization is reducing the ethnic as well as religious barriers. An inter- connected world allows exposure to and opportunity for exploring different worldviews, values and religions. Globalization allows connections and relationships with other likeminded individuals around the world, rather than only those in one’s immediate physical area.

New Groupings Are Emerging

These forces are changing the barriers to the spread of the gospel and impacting how the ethne of the world are defined from a church-planting perspective. Growing reports of movements to Jesus crossing traditional people group boundaries demonstrate a shift in how the gospel flows. For example, some have suggested that Gen-Z youth of Riyadh have more in common with their peers in Chicago than with their own parents. That might be an exaggeration but it makes a useful point. Youth in many cases are not identifying as strongly with their traditional people group, based on ethnicity and language, as they are with others in their age group and social experience almost anywhere in the world.

For on-site workers, other ways of grouping are becoming more useful and needed than groupings by ethnicity and language. For example, classifying Saudi Arabian Gen-Z youth in a database using traditional people group definitions could potentially obscure their preferred identity and limit reaching them with the gospel. Identifying Saudi Gen-Z youth as a unique dynamic grouping might accelerate the flow of the gospel along pathways of relationships and common interests.

Complementary Perspectives

Traditional people group lists are still important and useful but need periodic revisiting and evaluation in changing times. Lists help to outline the unfinished task of the Great Commission and provide church leaders and mobilizers with motivating benchmarks. At the same time, new perspectives and dynamics are bringing other groupings into focus. The “glue” that binds these new groupings together may not be language or ethnicity, but rather occupation, education, shared interests, social networks, generational issues and worldviews. These dynamic groupings will be increasingly strategic and effective pathways for the spread of the gospel. Both the traditional and dynamic perspectives of people groups are useful and should not be viewed as old vs. new, but rather as complementary.

Endnotes
  1. 1 An exciting revision of the CPPI framework called Gospel to All Peoples and Places (GAPP) is underway. See: gapp.taethni.com/about

  2. 2 Includes sources such as national government census, UN, CIA database, other state/government generated data.

  3. 3 Ibid.

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

What if?

What if?

Thinking about the theme of this MF, I wondered: What if Lausanne ’74 hadn’t happened?

Without Lausanne ’74, what might or might not have happened on the global level? With no Lausanne Covenant, would there be even less unity in the Church? Even less progress on social and justice issues for the poor? Less cooperation and understanding across cultures?

On a personal level, if Ralph Winter had not presented the vision for reaching the unreached at Lausanne, my life would have been very different.

I first heard Winter share that same vision at a weekend event for students, two years after he and Roberta returned from Lausanne. The Winters were days away from founding the U.S. Center for World Mission1—in part, because of Lausanne. A good friend (Doug) and I mobilized 25 college students to this event. We had a growing conviction that the task of reaching people with the gospel was something every Christian must be engaged in. We wrote a mission-focused newsletter for the church’s quarterly mailing. We read books and attended anything that might help us learn more about what was happening around the world. We were thrilled when we got our hands on the first U.S. edition of Operation World that same year—which detailed every country of the world and gave praises and prayer requests. We prayed.

But we had not heard or understood the concept of distinct cultural groups who were beyond the scope of the existing church mission efforts. Most alert Christians at the time knew there were Christians in every country of the world. But that did not solve the problem Winter spoke about. Doug and I learned, that even if every church in the world were to reach out as far as it could in every direction, more than one half of the world would remain untouched. Winter talked about Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist peoples and showed —on overhead transparencies—how few people were trying to reach them. He talked about “people groups” where there were no churches.

Doug and I just sat there stunned. Why hadn’t we heard this? Leaving that weekend event, we were even more motivated to get involved because the “task” Winter portrayed seemed doable. Doug became one of the earliest Perspectives coordinators. I joined Winter at the USCWM and have been there since.

So...What if Lausanne hadn’t happened? Humanly speaking, I would suggest we would have less hope.

When Doug and I first heard Ralph Winter, we knew enough about the world to see massive needs, but we didn’t understand the complexity. It was just a HUGE task. Lausanne helped us to see and gave the evangelical church mission world hope. “Bite-sized groups” of people seem more reachable, even if many of them are still radically different from us, and the task will require sacrifice.

Endnotes
  1. 1 Now Frontier Ventures, see http://www.frontierventures.org

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

Response to Urbanization and Measuring the Remaining Task

Response to Urbanization and Measuring the Remaining Task

Justin has put his finger on what I believe is the number one problem related to current people group thinking. For decades numerous voices have cast doubt on whether the people group paradigm can adequately describe human grouping in urban contexts. As centers of amalgamation, assimilation and integration of ethnicities, languages, and cultures, cities create hybrid or hyphenated identities over time.

“Fusion cuisine” is one product of such blending, yet such fusion goes far beyond food. It takes place within people as distinct communities living side-by-side in densely populated areas interact with others daily. The traditional framework of people groups, in which peoples are seen as clearly distinct groups with clear lines of demarcation, does not work in cities in a similar way. So does urban reality doom the people group paradigm to irrelevance?

It depends on how you define people groups. Historically, there have been two primary ways of defining them, one narrow and simple, the other broad and complex. The simple definition is best known as the ethnolinguistic definition, meaning that the peoples of the world are categorized according to shared ethnicity and language. The advantage of the ethnolinguistic definition is that it is quantifiable. This is the standard way peoples have been categorized, not only by missionaries, but also by the United Nations, national governments, etc.1

By contrast, the “official” definitions for people groups, hammered out by American, evangelical mission leaders, have been much more complex. These definitions of people groups did not neglect ethnolinguistic realities, but also recognized other factors. As early as 1978 Ralph Winter was defining “hidden peoples” more broadly: “Any linguistic, cultural or sociological group defined in terms of its primary affinity (not secondary or trivial affinities), which cannot be won by E-1 methods and drawn into an existing fellowship.”Here the word “sociological” broadens the types of grouping possible far beyond ethnicity and language. The emphasis is on “primary affinity” and is not necessarily ethnolinguistic.

Then in 1982 leaders gathered to agree on a standard definition of a people group,

A people group is a significantly large grouping of individuals who perceive themselves to have a common affinity for one another because of their shared language, religion, ethnicity, residence, occupation, class or caste, situation, etc. or combinations of these. For evangelistic purposes it is the largest group within which the gospel can spread as a Church Planting Movement without encountering barriers of understanding or acceptance.3

Notice that the first sentence includes much more than ethnicity and language as acceptable affinities. The second sentence, added at Winter’s impetus, puts the emphasis simply on “group” and emphasizes “barriers of understanding or acceptance.” In other words, a group is identified not only because it represents a new language (barrier of understanding) but also because it may represent other barriers created due to religion, class, caste, etc. (barrier of acceptance), perhaps even within one ethnolinguistic group. By this definition, people groups cannot be reduced to ethnicity and language.

Even after the establishment of the 1982 definition as an industry standard (which saw the demise of the phrase “hidden peoples”), and even though Winter helped create that newer definition, he felt that people groups were still being interpreted ethnolinguistically. So once again he attempted to change the focus with his description of “unimax peoples.” “A unimax people is the maximum sized group sufficiently unified to be the target of a single people movement to Christ, where ‘unified’ refers to the fact that there are no significant barriers of either understanding or acceptance to stop the spread of the gospel.” Again, there is no reference to the type of affinity. Winter was less concerned about how groups held together and more concerned with why the gospel wasn’t getting to them, less concerned about affinity and more concerned about access, less concerned about bonding and more concerned about barriers.

The differences in these views of what constitutes a people group are important. Winter and Koch rightly asked, “What if an ethnolinguistic people is actually a cluster of unimax peoples, and while one of them is experiencing a church-planting explosion, other groups in the cluster have little or nothing happening within them?”5 Not satisfied with identification of ethnolinguistic affinity, they have pushed us to discover where and why the spread of the gospel may be hindered within a given ethnolinguistic group.

With that history in view, let’s return to the question: does urban reality doom the people group paradigm to irrelevance?

If people groups are seen exclusively as ethnolinguistic groupings, then I believe they have indeed become somewhat irrelevant for urban contexts. I say “somewhat” because we need to remember that even with all the realities mentioned above, people in urban contexts can also remain very devoted to their home cultures. Not all people in urban environments mix in equal measure. Traditional norms often remain very strong, as illustrated by mother tongue transfer to younger generations and marriage within existing groups. It is not accurate to portray cities as bastions of indiscriminate and wholesale mixture.

However, given that caveat, it remains obvious that if we equate people groups with ethnolinguistic peoples, cities create problems too difficult to overcome. Rather than defending ethnolinguistic people groups in this way, I think we need to remind ourselves that the actual definitions hammered out decades ago allow for a more elastic, non-ethnolinguistic definition.

I believe that these classic people group definitions remain valid in urban settings. Under this paradigm, we are looking for groups (whatever their affinity) that appear to exist outside gospel witness. In most cases, this will be due to barriers of acceptance. Regardless of the fusion of peoples in urban settings, they are still forming into groups. That is what matters, not the particular and varied affinities they are grouped around. We don’t have to abandon people group thinking to understand urban life. But we do have to return to the earlier definitions to be reminded of the breadth of possibility human grouping takes.

Finally, this line of thinking can be taken too far. One of the weaknesses of the 1982 definition is that it allows for literally millions of human groupings encapsulated in “a common affinity for one another because of their shared language, religion, ethnicity, residence, occupation, class or caste, situation, etc. or combinations of these.” While a purely ethnolinguistic focus is too limiting, a focus on every conceivable human grouping in the world is far too broad. I believe the ethnolinguistic focus has served us well, but when an issue like urban contexts limit its effect, we need to delve deeper, but not too deep.

Our goal is not to describe every human grouping on this planet. It is to notice when the gospel is not getting somewhere, and then to prayerfully and humbly seek God for the wisdom needed to discern the barriers as well as the bridges to that group. The complex realities of human grouping will always frustrate simple definition and people group databases. They can only be discerned by workers embedded in urban centers over many years. Today’s urban missionary needs to become expert in new forms of research like social network analysis and become reacquainted with old forms of research like prayer. It is hard to imagine a more exciting vocation!

Endnotes
  1. 1 http://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/

  2. 2 Winter, Penetrating the Last Frontiers, Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1978, 42.


  3. 3 Ralph D. Winter and Bruce Koch. "Finishing the Task: The Unreached Peoples Challenge." In Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, 4th Ed., edited by 3 3 Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne, 531-546. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2009, 536.

  4. 4 Ibid., 534-535. 

  5. 5 Ibid., 539.

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

A Small Shift with Potential Significant Impact: Viewing Peoples Globally

A Small Shift with Potential Significant Impact: Viewing Peoples Globally

Traditional People Group Data Structure

It was in the 1960s and 1970s that Christian researchers began in earnest to identify the people groups of the world. When the original lists were made, there was limited communication and very little movement of peoples. At that time, an international flight may have cost 10 times what it does currently and taken much longer. An international telephone call typically cost several dollars per minute. The common way to stay in touch with people in other countries was often by hand- written postal letter.

Geographic distance was a significant barrier to the spread of the gospel. Diaspora groups had minimal contact with homeland populations; the homeland and diaspora peoples of the same ethnicity were considered distinct entities. People group populations were structured accordingly, and people groups were defined by including country boundaries as shown in Figure 1 below. That data structure has served the mission community well for the last 50 years. Figure 2 illustrates the traditional people group data structure and counts as presented on the Joshua Project website.

 

A Different World

However, the world is a very different place than when people group lists began. Travel is relatively inexpensive and rapid... we have virtually free and instant video connection... money can be sent with a few taps on a phone... family or associates can Facetime or Zoom anytime... business or ministry can be conducted remotely from another continent.

Globalization means anyone can essentially contact anyone, anywhere, anytime. The geographic barriers and “distance” between the homeland and the diaspora have significantly blurred. Migration means people are on the move with unimagined mobility. New people-groups- in-countries (PGICs) are formed whenever a homeland group moves to a new country. All this raises challenges and concerns related to the current people group terminology, data structures and presentation.

Challenges and Concerns

1. Multiple meanings of “people group”—Both entities in the dotted box in Figure 1. are currently called “people groups”. Sometimes the term “people group” means geopolitical boundaries are not considered, e.g., the Kurmanji Kurd everywhere in the world. Other times “people group” means country borders are considered, e.g., the Kurmanji Kurds in Turkey, the Kurmanji Kurds in Iraq, etc. Without context, it is unclear whether the reference is to a people-group-across-countries (PGAC) or a people-group-in-country (PGIC). This has caused substantial confusion.

2. Ever expanding list of “people groups”—The widely recognized count of “people groups” is the number of people-groups-in-country (PGICs) in Figure 1. However, the number of PGICs is essentially unlimited. Therefore, the traditional PGIC way of counting “people groups” is a continually increasing number. In turn, this causes the number of Unreached People Groups to appear to be growing. Again, confusion has resulted.

3. PGICs are weighted the same—The largest homeland groups and the smallest diaspora groups are considered at the same level when viewed at a PGIC level. They have equal weight as database entries. Each is considered a unique “people group.” For example, the nine million homeland Kurmanji Kurds in Turkey are counted the same as a few thousand diaspora Kurmanji Kurds in Norway.

4. Mixes geography into the hierarchy—Traditional geographic barriers to the spread of the gospel are diminishing. Fifty years ago, geography was considered in the hierarchy of people groups, but this may have contributed to "silos” of ministry focus at the country level and may be less helpful in today’s world.

Data modeling suggests the elements in a hierarchy ought to all be of the same “stuff”. Separating geography from the people group hierarchy may be helpful. Figure 3 shows a slightly modified people group data structure.

  • Only PGACs are called “people groups”.

  • All PGICs are no longer called “people groups” but

    rather “people group in country”.

  • The count of PGACs becomes the emphasized number.

  • PGICs are not part of the hierarchy but are still fully available.

    Fortunately, people group data is currently coded such that Figure 3 is already available. PGACs already have a unique identifier, and the data presently can be viewed by PGAC. The change would mainly be in the presentation of the data and which count is emphasized as “the number of people groups in the world”. Using the Joshua Project numbers from Figure 2, there would be 10,422 people groups and 17,433 people groups in country.

Potential Benefits and Opportunities

The perspective change in Figure 3 is relatively small, but addresses the four concerns above:

  1. Has the benefit of different names for PGACs “people groups” and PGICs “people groups in country”.
  2. The count of PGACs is a reasonably stable number. The goalposts are not continually moving. Also, there is likely a much higher degree of agreement between various people group lists at the PGAC level.
  3. Allows users to differentiate between homeland and diaspora people groups in country, in any way desired. Considering an ethnicity as a global whole might help foster strategy and best practices across the entire PGAC.
  4. Removes geography from the hierarchy but keeps PGIC counts available. The PGIC people-group-in-country perspective probably will continue to be the initial way users approach people group data as most users start from a country mindset. This modified structure also allows for further refining to people-group-in-states/ provinces without adding to the hierarchy and further disrupting terminology and counts.

Recommendations 

  • A. Present a biblical basis for the PGAC “people group” perspective. Current geo-political boundaries did not exist when Jesus gave the Great Commission.
  • B. Begin highlighting and emphasizing the PGAC perspective. Show the PGIC and PGAC total and unreached counts side-by-side. Compare and explain the counts: Why two sets of numbers? What do they mean? How do they compare to the past?
  • C. Encourage other people group list keepers, mobilizers and stakeholders to begin using the revised terminology and numbers.

This is an article from the Sept-Oct 2021 issue: Is the World Still a Waffle?

Is The World Still A Waffle?

Guest Editorial by Dan Scribner

Is The World Still A Waffle?

I stared at the booklet on the desk in utter amazement. It was November 1991. I was sitting in the prayer room in Hudson Taylor Hall on the campus of the U.S. Center for World Mission. My prayer shift was from midnight to 4:00 a.m. It was now 2:30. As I turned the pages of the booklet, I struggled to comprehend what I was seeing.

The booklet was an early list of the largest ethnolinguistic people groups who apparently had little, if any, exposure or response to the gospel: page after page showed the distinct “nations” without any meaningful presence of Jesus Christ in their midst. How could it be that, after nearly 2,000 years, so many people groups were still unreached? Little did I know that booklet would change the next 30 years of my life.

Dr. Ralph Winter’s watershed address at Lausanne ’74 challenged the worldwide mission community to view the world, not primarily as geo-political nations, but as distinct ethnic peoples each needing a unique church-planting effort. A fresh paradigm was birthed.

Mission mobilizers began describing the world as a waffle rather than a pancake. Previously, the view that we could “pour enough syrup on the pancake to fully cover it” meant we simply needed to send enough missionaries, do enough evangelism, plant enough churches and eventually the Great Commission would be fulfilled. But the world really was a waffle with very significant barriers to the spread of the gospel; the sweetness of the gospel did not automatically go everywhere; many pockets of people were untouched afternearly2,000years.Peoplegroup lists and information were needed if the Church were to fully understand the scope of “making disciples of all the nations.”

Since then, several people group lists have emerged, each with unique definitions, purposes and audiences. Except for South Asia, these people group lists are primarily ethno- linguistic, with language being the primary factor in defining a people group. These people group lists have had a significant impact on the missions world. Don’t miss the articles from Asian, African and Latin American voices sharing how people group thinking and information have impacted their ministries. Read how people group data motivated and transformed a mission agency. Another article highlights how people group data is being combined with other datasets to produce a visual prioritization tool. The first half of this Mission Frontiers issue is only a small sampling of how the Lord has used people group information to advance His kingdom.

The world is a very different place than it was nearly 50 years ago when the people group paradigm was birthed. Should the missions community still view the world as a waffle? Is traditional ethnolinguistic people group thinking still relevant? There are definite challenges moving forward:

Urbanization is blurring, if not eliminating, traditional people group boundaries. Is the traditional people group perspective relevant in a megacity?

  • Globalization is allowing the free-flow and mixing of ethnicities, ideas, worldviews and cultures. T
  • There is a growing call for recognition of the greater granularity of dynamic, hybrid people groups in which groupings are not defined by language but by different “glue”. Can current tracking of people groups handle greater complexity?
  • Mobility is creating new diaspora dynamics. Is it more helpful to view people groups globally than by country?
  • When does a diaspora group become a distinct people group from the homeland group?
  •  Language consolidation is reducing linguistic barriers and movements to Jesus are crossing traditional people group barriers.
  •  Accurate, updated information is difficult to obtain. How can crowdsourcing and collaboration be leveraged to refine and update people group data?
  •  Current people group lists and presentations may not be impacting younger generations.
  •  We see a need for much greater space for Global South researchers and people group data managers to not simply come alongside existing efforts, but also to take the lead and set the agenda, bringing fresh insight and vitality. 

The second half of this issue of Mission Frontiers gives a glimpse into a few of these challenges. Space limits extensive exploration of all these topics, but hopefully some of these articles will stimulate further dialogue regarding people group information in a changing world.

Is the world still a waffle? Traditional people group lists are still very applicable in parts of the world dominated by formal and informal caste structures and in tribal and rural settings. This includes significant parts of Africa and Asia, where the great majority of Unreached People Groups reside.

At the same time, the traditional waffle barriers are changing. Global trends are creating new social dynamics and changing both the barriers and boundaries by which groups are defined. New hybrid, trans-national and dynamic groupings must be considered for evangelistic purposes, Disciple Making and Church Planting Movements.

Most of the material in this issue is important in shaping our thinking. But be alert for heart knowledge as well as head knowledge; don’t overlook the heart-engaging Unreached of the Day prayer section. It has been said that prayer is the “first domino” in reaching the unreached. The Unreached of the Day is a simple and practical way to be involved. It is available here
in print and by mobile app, email, podcast and printable PDF at unreachedoftheday.org.

May the Lord stir hearts in prayer rooms in Lagos, Rio de Janeiro and Mumbai, leading to a fresh wave of people group thinking and information-tracking. Regardless of how people groups are defined, the Lamb is worthy of worship from every tribe, tongue, nation and people. Soli Deo Gloria.

This is an article from the July-August 2021 issue: Innovation in Missions

Innovation Grounded in the Spirituality of Frontier Mission

Guest Editorial by Paul Dzubinski and Steven Spicer

Innovation Grounded in the Spirituality of Frontier Mission

From big business to the laboratory to tech companies, everyone is talking about innovation and how to make the next incredible new thing. And we think about the amazing innovators of the past like Madam Curie (who discovered radioactivity and won Nobel Peace prizes in two fields), Thomas Edison and his light bulb, the Wright Brothers (who gave us flight), and Dr. Shirley Jackson (who completed research that led to solar cells, fiber optic cables, portable fax machines, touch-tone telephones and caller ID.) These are amazing people and quite honestly, we are grateful to God for the innovations that they discovered, but we are not talking about that kind of thing in this edition of Mission Frontiers.

We are talking about innovation that brings about the breakthrough of Jesus’ kingdom. You will see articles that discuss innovation in multi-cultural settings, innovation related to alongsiders and how Jesus-centered innovation can bring change to ministries and even social contexts. This is part of kingdom transformation.

At Frontier Ventures we define innovation for integral mission as the creation of sustainable new solutions to the problems faced in discerning, proclaiming and living out God’s good news for individual persons, societies and creation. We approach this with tools and practices of design thinking and systems thinking, but we insist on adding to them group thinking, spiritual discernment, theological grounding, and a missiological focus.

Group Spiritual Discernment

We believe that significant innovation in missions requires a group of believers to be on a journey of discernment together. Insights and innovative ways forward emerge from communities of prayer. They surface over time through a group’s experience of transformation together that leads to new ways of seeing, listening, and being. While innovation practices provide helpful ways of thinking, asking questions, and reframing challenges, prayerful group discernment is about creating space to abide in Jesus, allowing the Spirit to inspire fresh imagination in us as we follow the Father’s wisdom and direction.

Theological Grounding

The articles in this edition of Mission Frontiers address things like ministry models, contextualization and social transformation. But all of them have a theological grounding in a holistic understanding of the gospel of Jesus. As Colossians 1:14-20 shows us, it is the saving message of the cross, but because that work was so powerful in its impact on humanity, it also unites all peoples into the family of God, produces an ethical transformation in all of us, exposes evil before God’s judgment and is the power of God at work in history and in creation (The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World condensed, 2010).

Missiological Focus

The focus of Mission Frontiers is the frontiers of mission. That is also where we want to see innovation happen. We agree with the definition of frontier missiology that is used at Frontier Ventures. It is the attempt to understand and encourage the initial incarnation of the gospel into relational networks of people, and the growth of the initial disciples within such initial efforts into biblical, indigenous, holistic and sustainable movements of Jesus followers.

Not all of the articles in this edition of Mission Frontiers fit squarely into this definition. However, they all express an innovation in missions that either can be or is already at the frontiers of mission.

Inside This Edition

With that in mind let us look at the edition of Mission Frontiers that we have at hand. The nine articles that make up this edition can be divided into three categories of innovation in mission. Each expresses a different focus: alongsiding innovation toward localized gospel expressions, societal transformation and ministry design. Let’s look at each of them.

Alongsiding Innovation toward Localized Expressions

Grab a cup of coffee or tea and dive into the lead article. It is here that we, Steven Spicer and Paul Dzubinski, describe how discerning innovative ways forward in frontier missions requires personal and community transformation. A group that is open to being led by God into new and life-giving ways of being in Jesus outside of our cultural models and worldviews can help forge new paths forward at the frontiers of mission. Those paths might look and sound quite different all while following the same Jesus who shepherds us.

Some of the most difficult barriers to the gospel require new localized expressions of following Jesus. This often involves walking alongside others from a particular context as they discern faithful ways of expressing the Good News. This type of innovation in a multi-cultural setting is addressed by Kevin Higgins in his regular article entitled “Toward the Edges.” He shows us what innovating at the edges of mission can be like when insiders begin to explore ways for least-reached peoples to experience new life in Jesus. Innovation practices yield unexpected results. And while that can be true, Claire TC Chong’s article about contextualization in Cambodia shows how Cambodian leaders come alongside their culture to find nuanced insights toward new localized expressions of faith for the sake of the gospel.

Societal Transformation and Innovation

Innovation aimed at societal transformation is often called social innovation. It is about the creation of new value and good for the community by aligning people, relationships and resources in new ways. In mission this is expressed with a focus on kingdom transformation and expressing God’s blessing. A wonderful example of this is the work of Wordly Collective, which has built a collaborative ecosystem to help minority language communities flourish. Steven interviewed Pastor Melvyn Mak to hear more about Wordly’s fascinating work. Another example is the work of Ed and Joan McManness with a community of students from around the world. Their work integrates care for people, community, creation and God’s spiritual directives.

Ministry Design and Innovation

The last four articles show innovative approaches and practices for ministry design. They focus on ways in mission for creating sustainable new opportunities, services, and impact in people’s lives. Here, Victor Tukura beautifully shows us how Africans mobilize the church for global missions. Brent McHugh challenges us to adopt design thinking in order to reach the 7,000+ unreached peoples. Ryan Crozier describes an approach to support and walk alongside the underdogs who have a calling to bring change through all sectors of society. Finally, Derek Seipp gives us a disciplined approach to planning ministry differently.

All of these nine articles will give you a wonderful taste of innovation in missions both internationally and domestically. May God bless you as you read.

This is an article from the July-August 2021 issue: Innovation in Missions

Unreached of the Day July-August 2021 (Formerly known as the Global Prayer Digest)

Unreached of the Day July-August 2021 (Formerly known as the Global Prayer Digest)

Click on the attached .pdf icon within this article to read the Unreached of the Day

This is an article from the July-August 2021 issue: Innovation in Missions

The Person, Not the Method: An Essential Ingredient for Catalyzing a Movement

24:14 Goal: Movement engagements in every unreached people and place by 2025 (54 months)

The Person, Not the Method: An Essential Ingredient for Catalyzing a Movement

Over a period of three years, I conducted empirical research1 among effective movement catalysts to discover the traits and competencies possessed by pioneers effective in catalyzing a movement among a Muslim people group, and which traits they considered to have contributed to their catalyzing of a movement. This resulted in a profile of an effective movement catalyst, including eleven traits and competencies self-reported as exhibited by all participating effective catalysts.2

Leader Traits Verified to Fit 100% of all Catalysts

Most literature on the subject of catalyzing a movement has focused on spiritual traits of the pioneer leader combined with the right methodology. David Garrison emphasizes characteristics of CPMs as well as methodology. The subtitles of his main publications are telling, as both refer to methods in the word “how”: “How God is Redeeming a Lost World” and “How God is Drawing Muslims around the World to Faith in Jesus Christ.” Garrison makes his approach sound comprehensive and absolute when insisting, “If one of these components is missing, you won’t get the results you desire” (292). He ascribes a crucial role to the pioneer leader (255), stating that “God has given Christians vital roles to play in the success or failure of these movements” (26); however, it is beyond the scope of his work to explore their traits or competencies.

The Watsons and Jerry Trousdale emphasize right methodology as well. Watsons qualify the significance of the method- ological elements of the DMM approach: “This book focuses on the strategic elements you need to get a movement started. If you remove any of these elements, you won’t have a movement, period. You may have some growth, but you won’t ex- perience a movement.” Watson regards the role of the external leader as critical, since he is the one who sparks the process of a movement (2011, 114). The main trait Watson highlights, a good character, is not verified as such by my research, but intersects strongly with Inspiring Personality, a trait verified in my research (exhibited by more than 80% of all catalysts interviewed), as well as some of the other traits: responsibility, dependability, and persistence. The relevance of character needs further study. Most of Watson’s competencies are either verified directly in this research (radical learning) or appear under competencies identified by this research, including the ability to develop potential beyond boundaries, the ability to delegate (empowering), and listening skills (personal consideration). Another competency identified by Watson, the ability to build teams, is very broad but encompasses a number of competencies identified by this research.

Steve Smith likewise emphasized methodology; he presented a comprehensive, branded package by the name T4T. Smith made no explicit claim that his comprehensive methodology would guarantee a movement. The comprehensiveness of the approach, however, could easily leave the reader with that impression. For example, in a case study of an emerging movement, Smith described how he counseled the catalyst: “It wasn’t a CPM yet, but was getting close. As we listened, it was apparent that some elements of the T4T process were missing. We counseled him to incorporate the lessons from the next chapter.” In a separate publication, the only publication so far addressing exactly the topic of this study, Smith also considered the person of the pioneer leader. Based on multiple case studies of dozens of practitioners, Smith’s summary of the traits and competencies of effective catalysts was that “each of them possesses a healthy combination of a set of characteristics.” Most of those characteristics were verified by the empirical data of this present research.

Among the traits and competencies verified fully are: knowledge of reproduction principles, knowledge of movements, knowledge of what catalyzes movement (all under movement knowledge), lifelong learning, faith, expectant prayer (expectant faith and fervent intercession), and mentoring. Several other traits and competencies suggested by Smith are included within traits verified by this present research, such as knowledge of the Bible (under Bible teaching), tenacity and perseverance (persistence), integrity and spiritual authenticity (inspiring personality), loving God (hunger for God), being led by God, having vision from God, and exercising faith (expectant faith), bold discipling (discipling), ruthless self-evaluation (innovation and radical learning), training (Bible teaching, discipling, and coaching), developing leaders (confidence in nationals, and coaching), and vision casting (inspiring of vision). Only a few traits suggested by Smith are not directly verified to be strongly exhibited by movement catalysts: passionate urgency, single-mindedness and exercising accountability.

The data of my research suggest that the effective catalyzing of movements is not tied to any particular methodology, though all employed reproductive movement approaches. Different effective catalysts employ different ministry approaches, both in terms of their movement methodology and in their approach to contextualization. A quarter of the catalysts participating in this study skipped the question about their ministry approach, which points to likely hesitation on their side to put their approach “into a box.” In addition, more than half of those who answered the question used the “Other” option to describe their ministry approach in their own words. Often the description given was a hybrid of two or more of the other approaches. This means that the approach of most effective catalysts in this study is a hybrid of more than one ministry approach, which they have adapted to the uniqueness of their context. The research does not support any claims that one specific ministry approach must be followed precisely to lead to a movement.

With the exception of the approach of adding Muslim Background Believers (MBBs) to existing Christian Background Believer (CBB) churches, it appears that particularity of methodology does not correlate to success in catalyzing a movement. By definition, the traditional approach (planting a single church) is not conducive to catalyzing a movement. This could explain why the pattern of adding MBBs to existing CBB churches is not utilized by any of the effective catalysts. At the same time, 13% of the catalysts employed the approach of planting a new church comprised of MBBs. This single church then reproduced itself and grew into a movement. The difference in these two approaches is not methodological, but primarily sociocultural. The adding of MBBs to CBB churches involves the bridging of divides, whether sociological, cultural, ethnic, or linguistic. These barriers explain why adding MBBs to existing CBB churches is not an effective approach for catalyzing a CPM, whereas the planting of a new MBB church may be.

Still, only 13% of all movements examined have been catalyzed with such an approach. The overwhelming majority of movements were catalyzed with one of the various movement approaches. Although the approaches used by effective catalysts differ in certain aspects, it is important to observe that all the approaches were reproductive movement approaches. These approaches have certain principles in common, which include cultural contextualization, obedience- oriented discipleship, house churches, reproduction, training of multipliers, and reproducible resources. The overall emphasis in pioneer and apostolic leadership and movement literature has been on right methodology, with some attention to leader traits and competencies of the pioneer leader or leaders, particularly traits of a spiritual nature. However, the findings of this research go beyond the commonly established insights of Christian pioneer leadership. The data clearly suggest that a particular methodology is far less significant in catalyzing movements than may have been assumed or publicized. The data of this study clearly establish that certain pioneer leader traits and competencies are strongly associated with effective catalyzing of CPMs. This perspective has been voiced by only a few, most notably Neill Mims and Bill Smith, who formulated what are considered to be among the most significant insights of almost 20 years of research into CPMs: “At the end of the day, it is the man or woman of God and not the method that God blesses.”

Another of the few voices who have expressed this perspective is movement thinker Dave Ferguson, who concluded: “the greater the missional impact, the more obvious the pioneering apostolic leadership becomes.” The person of the pioneer leader(s), not the method he or she employs, plays the greatest role in determining whether or not a movement will result. Bill Smith is again among the few who formulated this accurate conclusion: “If someone says to me, give me the method or give me the curriculum, I know that they have not understood that this [the catalyzing of a movement] is accomplished through persons rather than methods.”

The right leader(s) will employ the right methodology. A pioneer leader with traits such as radical learning, intelligence, complex thinking, innovation, and initiative, who then possesses the necessary socio-influential and transformational competencies, has the best potential to identify and implement the most effective methodology for the context in which he or she is operating. However, a person who receives a certain methodology, but lacks the traits and competencies identified in this study, will be unable to effectively apply the methodology. This stands in stark contrast to the conclusions of many publications on movements that center around methods and principles rather than on the person of the catalyst. I hope the clear data of this research will jolt a paradigm shift in the field of catalyzing movements.

A pioneer leader with traits such as radical learning, intelligence, complex thinking, innovation, and initiative, who then possesses the necessary socio-influential and transformational competencies, has the best potential to identify and implement the most effective methodology for the context in which he or she is operating.

What do YOU think? We invite you to drop a note to [email protected].

Disagree? We would like to hear from you, to stimulate dialogue about this topic.

Agree? We would like to hear your insights on “person over method,” and on the traits of effective movement catalysts.

Endnotes
  1. 1 A more in-depth discussion of the research methodology and conclusions can be found in my book Movement Catalysts: The Profile of the Leader God Uses to Catalyze Movements and in my chapter “The Profile of an Effective Movement Catalyst,” in Motus Dei, both forthcoming from William Carey Publishing. This research is ongoing, with an ever- growing sample of participants, and more findings to be published.

  2. 2 The research identified a further list of traits of competencies exhibited consistently by most (defined as ≥80%) effective catalysts. This article, however, concentrates on those exhibited by all effective catalysts.

This is an article from the July-August 2021 issue: Innovation in Missions

HUP

HUP

A little more than ten years ago, I was rummaging around the library at Fuller Seminary. The seminary had graciously given me “visiting scholar” status, so I could access resources for my dissertation on Ralph D. Winter through the University of Wales. As many PhD researchers do, when I found the specific book I was looking for, I poked around on the shelf nearby to see if anything else under that subject would contribute to my research. You never know what rabbit trails that might lead to—sometimes very fruitful ones. (And more footnotes are always impressive!)

One day, in the bottom floor of “the stacks”, I found a thick, thesis-looking book full of the photocopies of typewritten papers under the title Consultation on the Homogeneous Unit Principle and moderated by John R.W. Stott. I knew that the Lausanne Movement had produced dozens of what they call Lausanne Occasional Papers, and the summary of this 1977 event became the very first paper.1

What I didn’t know was that the 10 papers presented as fuel for discussion at that Consultation were in one place (I am now compiling these for publication.) And indeed, their “consultative” process was extensive and rich with discussion, suggestions, agreement and (some strong) disagreement. Our archivist, Helen Darsie, found a fascinating, on-going exchange of papers/letters about these issues in our Donald A. McGavran holdings.

The presenters (and dissenters) included McGavran, with a long paper from missiologist Harvie M. Conn. Ralph D. Winter presented a historical view, and Arthur Glasser a biblical view. C. Rene Padilla—who just went to be with the Lord in mid-May—gave a counter-perspective from the view of Latin America, along with a few others.

As you can guess by now, HUP is an abbreviation for Homogeneous Unit Principle. That principle is, at its core: that people like to become Christians within their own homogeneous units, without crossing linguistic, class, or race barriers.

In many ways, that sounds simple and reasonable. But at that time, HUP had already been a controversial topic in mission circles and is an increasingly complex and “charged” issue today. By the 1970s, Donald A. McGavran’s Church Growth theories had been both a source of strategy and fodder for critique—sometimes very negative. Other consultations and seminars had been held by various groups to try to learn, understand and/or point out potential problems—and they published the result.

Some of those who opposed the ideas felt the idea of targeting the gospel to flow within specific groups might lead to the exclusion of other groups—and potentially be unfair racially. Defining “groups” was/is problematic, and while we should still try, groups do change over time. Some argue now, that increasingly, everything is in a “melting pot” and or a “stew” and that culture is becoming “globalized.” Others longed for the way churches should be multi-ethnic—accepting of all cultures and color-blind. Which, in turn, raises issues about what it means to be a “multicultural church.” One major issue is control —one group within a local church will naturally take leadership based on their personality, position in society, etc. It happens everywhere; we all need leaders. But, it becomes problematic when a major language like English or Spanish or Mandarin or … is used for the main language of worship and teaching, which colors the outcome.

Further, what does biblical or practical “unity” mean when it comes to missions and church? Some of the issues and dialogue on race in America today were part of the discussion back in 1977.

All of this impacts how we reach non-believers—from reached or unreached groups. How do people come to faith? Our models of church should address both (1) what we do with/for those who are already believers, and (2) those who are not—near or far. How do we effectively share with them, or send global servants to them?

With all that in mind, and the fact that McGavran’s ideas are core to many current missions strategies (like CPM, DMM, T4T10), we are planning the next Ralph D. Winter Lectureship on this topic. It will be a seminar with presenters and Q&A on these various issues. That event is expected to be held online and in person in Southern California in late February to early March of 2022.

I am also working on publishing the original papers and summaries of the discussion in a book to be released before the event. You can look for announcements of both at http://www.frontierventures.org or on the Frontier Ventures Facebook page.

Endnotes
  1. 1 Lausanne now has 66 of what they call: LOP.  See: http://www.lausanne.org/category/lop

  2. 2 In case you are new to MF, CPM = Church Planting Movements, DMM = Disciple Making Movements, T4T=Training 4 TraIners.

This is an article from the July-August 2021 issue: Innovation in Missions

Design Thinking: Designed for Missions

Design Thinking: Designed for Missions

In 2018, as headlines in the global press became captivated by the daily increasing influx of migrants and refugees to Europe—to Germany, Italy and then Spain—a group of ministry practitioners gathered in southern Spain. As Spain’s shores and airports together became the largest receiver of a cornucopia of least-reached people groups fleeing their homelands, this group saw a vast open door.

Those of us who had taken the Perspectives on the World Christian Movement course were reminded of Dr. Ralph Winter describing involuntary coming (“when people were forced to migrate to areas of believers and were influenced toward the believers’ faith”) as one of the mechanisms by which the kingdom of God has expanded throughout history. The immediacy of the opportunity before us to engage the people the Lord was bringing to us prompted local actors to come together to brainstorm, discuss and collaborate to meet the God-sized opening to serve. It was humbling to listen and work with leaders from multiple organizations and churches, as well as with community advocates with years of practical knowledge, skill and gifting.

I have been a big fan of the app Meetup since 2013 and have benefited from its service to announce innovation meetings in our region. It was through one of these Meetup events that I met Gijs, the president of Bold Thinking, as he facilitated several workshops focused on developing solutions for big challenges. He soon began mentoring me in Bold Thinking practices, and I later completed a strategic planning and implementation certificate program through the University of Virginia Darden School of Business that hooked me on design thinking processes.

Though, as the name suggests, design thinking is rooted in the strategies and processes designers use, its principles provide a people-centered approach that can benefit a wide range of fields. This creative problem-solving process focuses heavily on the needs of the people who would benefit from the products or services that are created. As such, it’s a powerful tool that can lead missions practitioners to strategies that address the challenges experienced by the people we are seeking to reach with the gospel and in turn open doors for church-planting.

Our group in southern Spain saw this several times over. Through a series of Bold Thinking exercises built on design thinking, our local community initiated a call to action that has led to several solutions that have positively impacted the lives of migrants and refugees. The first was the development and launch of an NGO by leaders from at least six organizations; this entity continues to meet the needs of immigrants through activities like food distribution and language classes.

Our design thinking approach then led to the development of start-up academies that equip entrepreneurs in the immigrant community to incubate and accelerate their microenterprises. These programs engage the largest experienced need of the immigrant and refugee community—the need for employment and income—by coaching, mentoring and training newly arrived migrants to start local, regional or global companies.

These start-up academies were created to provide environments that inspire and facilitate experimentation, development and growth. They are labs where immigrants’ ideas are developed into products or services that are designed and tested, and where customers become partners. The academy serves as a greenhouse where the facilitators are the gardeners making sure to provide the conditions and nourishment needed for enterprises to grow and become sustainable. So far, three start-up academy programs are being offered in our community, and a fourth is beginning in another city soon.

From there, design thinking has led to the development of a tool to identify the skills of immigrants and refugees and assist them in integrating into the workforce of southern Spain. This initiative has grown exponentially and led to participation in a European Commission-wide call for wider implementation.

Most recently it has led to the development of an artificial intelligence tool that helps immigrants and refugees understand the pathway to asylum and access other services. Applying for asylum is a human right (according to the United Nations), so everyone must be able to enter another country to request it. Despite the fact that Spain and the European Union have clear protocols regarding asylum applications, many migrants do not know where and how to find this information; even when they find it, it is not always available in their native language.

Our solution gives asylum-seekers and other migrants access to the pathway in their own language so they can enter the asylum process and gain access to the labor market. The platform has a simple objective: to combine co-creation and artificial intelligence to make it easier for migrants to understand and access the services to which they are entitled.

Design thinking has led to these durable solutions that are allowing ministries throughout southern Spain to engage immigrants and refugees at their points of need for the purpose of planting churches among the people groups that God has brought to our region. These strategies are enabling us to build bonds of trust in migrants’ social networks and establish a respected name in the immigrant and refugee community—benefits to our church-planting strategy that have been affirmed as fruitful practices in the research of Eric Adams, Don Allen and Bob Fish. In addition, these solutions have reduced the number of refugees and immigrants who leave our community, thus increasing the likelihood of sustainable gatherings of believers from among least-reached people groups.

UVA Darden School of Business

Our design thinking approach was impacted greatly by Professor Jeanne M. Liedtka of the University of Virginia, who, by her instruction, has enabled our staff to grow in our ability to adapt to new opportunities such as expanding mobilization from the Majority World. She also taught us to respond to church-planting opportunities among the largest movement of people in our lifetime by asking four questions:

  1. What is?” (focused on what exists in the present)
  2. What if?” (focused on building on the present to envision a new future)
  3. “What wows?” (focused on helping teams hone in on solutions that stand out)
  4. “What works?” (focused on testing possible solutions with actual users in the real world

Based on my experience, I believe design thinking is an important resource for identifying solutions to the challenges we are facing in fulfilling the Great Commission. Numerous aspects of this approach make it a good fit for missions practitioners: 

  • Emphasis on engaging people: As mission organizations and cross-cultural workers continuously strive to connect with least-reached people groups in more direct and relevant ways, the people-centered approach inherent in design thinking provides a range of practical methods and processes through which we can realize the outcomes we are seeking for the kingdom in all its varied contexts.
  • Future orientation: As an integrative practice that focuses on identifying opportunities and obstacles through imagination, modeling, experimentation and visioning, design thinking offers tools that enable decision-makers to challenge and often redefine their assumptions about a challenge or opportunity they face.
  • Ability to operate in complexity: Design practices fit well with the complex multi-stakeholder landscape of church- planting. With its emphasis on integrating many different perspectives, design thinking offers tangible means of benefiting from strategic collaboration.
  • Systematic methods: Design thinking, as opposed to more loosely formulated terms like “innovation” or “creativity,” offers well-described methods and tools that can be readily adopted by mission leaders and field personnel.

As we as a community of church-planting practitioners consider the 7,000+ unreached peoples that must still be engaged with the gospel, design thinking is an important resource for developing durable solutions to reach them. In a world where the windows and doors of opportunities to engage people groups are opening and closing faster than at any other time in history, I hope you will consider adding design thinking processes to your team or organization as a fruitful means to foster innovative change.

This is an article from the July-August 2021 issue: Innovation in Missions

Wordly Collective: Building a Collaborative Ecosystem for Minority Language Community Flourishing

Wordly Collective: Building a Collaborative Ecosystem for Minority Language Community Flourishing

New ways forward in mission often emerge by making connections between people who are able to collaborate together to address a challenge. In other words, relationships are at the heart of social innovation in mission. This rings particularly true when it comes to serving and working among minority language communities (MLCs) who lack access to important information, resources and opportunities due to language barriers. Mission organizations have long been at work among these communities from the angle of Bible translation and gospel witness. However, there are also incredible opportunities to express the gospel in innovative and holistic ways through the formation of collaborative relationships at the nexus of language translation and community development.

One non-profit social enterprise inviting the church into this collaborative space is Wordly Collective. In partnership with SIL International (a faith-based NGO focused on language), they aim, “to help minority language community flourish using the languages they value most.”1 More specifically, they, “seek to empower marginalized minority language communities, help more people step out of poverty, create localized information that will improve overall health and well- being and improve access to education.”

To discover more about what makes Wordly Collective’s approach innovative, I recently had an opportunity to interview Pastor Melvyn Mak. In addition to being a board member of Wordly, Melvyn is also chairman of Transformational Business Network (TBN) Asia, which takes an ecosystem approach to supporting social entrepreneurs, and co-founder of Actxplorer, which combines travel with benefit to local communities. He describes his call and gifting as being an integrator, which I might suggest is a synonym for “social innovator.” The essence of social innovation is the creation of new opportunities for people to overcome social challenges and barriers through the alignment of healthy and collaborative relationships. That seems to me an apt description for what Wordly Collective is doing.

See Pastor Melvyn’s explanation and reflections on Wordly Collective:

Steven: Hi Melvyn, could you share some about how Wordly Collective was developed, particularly with a collaborative approach that connects many different stakeholders around minority language communities?

Melvyn: Wordly Collective is about mother tongue language and how language can help bring people to the forefront of opportunities. We want to take whatever we have in terms of the linguistic side of things and connect with the world at large to bring about community flourishing—in other words, it’s about the whole idea of missions but done in a more collaborative and integrated way.

Wordly Collective runs a translation platform. We are basically an ecosystem builder. The translation app will connect translators with users from the different sectors of society, and as we do that, we actually are a connector. If you need a document, a health advisory, a curriculum, a book, or whatever to be translated, we can actually connect them. Then we give a fee to the translators according to what is normally accepted as a translation fee.

Now, of course in the beginning some NGOs wanted to be translated, but they could not afford it. Likewise, missions organizations could not afford it, so then we would raise funds for them. In other words, we pay one side [translators], but to help the other side. We bring forth connection so that the people working with a particular minority language community can actually speed up a lot of things and exchange ideas—what works and what does not.

Let’s say, for example, we look at a minority language group in Myanmar. That is really at the forefront because they have many minority language groups with more than a million people in Myanmar. (Wordly has chosen to focus on the roughly 386 MLCs with at least one million speakers each.) We connect people with these minority language communities. It could be foundations, it could be governments, it could be the United Nations, or it could be social enterprises. And when we can start connecting them, then we realize that actually there’s a role for us to play. Basically, we are trying to create turnkey projects that deal with economic, social, mental well-being and so on. And the Church has a role to play because the Church is involved with the spiritual and emotional well-being part of it.

Steven: Could you share about the role of geography and location as you work with stakeholders and minority language communities in the Wordly translation ecosystem?

Melvyn: For example, in Singapore we have migrant workers. They’re from Bangladesh; they’re from Myanmar. And it’s not just in Singapore. You see, in Malaysia, you see similar representation of migrant workers as well as refugees, like those that are in Indonesia too.

In other words, we’re talking about the diaspora. Now, our heart is that if we are reaching a particular language group, we always have this belief that, like the Book of Revelation says, God gathers the nations, every tongue, every tribe, every people, every nation. It is about the mother tongue. The heart language is still very key. God has not forgotten that, so just because people migrate to English for economic reasons doesn’t mean that it’s forgotten. In fact, I think the mother tongue can help speed up opportunities, and also it connects them in the diaspora. In other words, the Malaysian site working with the Rohingyas can know what the Indonesian site is doing because Wordly seeks to be that ecosystem builder.

Steven: As you bring together all of these different stakeholders and work with minority language communities at home and in diaspora, there are people from many different cultures and backgrounds involved. How does Wordly Collective think about this interreligious space of collaboration?

Melvyn:  The proposal is that the space where the Jubilee Gospel [the bringing together of the Church and marketplace for the sake of alleviation of poverty] operates is perhaps the largest evangelism space that the Church has not thought about. Because our model [of evangelism], and I speak about myself as well, is people coming to listen. But I’ve realized that in this space of fighting poverty through enterprise, you have so much connectivity—with the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Christians—the different faiths all mixed up together. For example, every one of our Transformational Business Network Asia conferences has interfaith collaboration. Those guys know that I’m a pastor. Sometimes my team would slip up and say, “Oh, Pastor Melvyn!”, so they know. And there’s nothing that I hide. I work with, for example, the CEO of the Buddhist foundation organization, who is a great man—a great guy with a big heart of compassion—and then we work with the Islamic boarding school principal, their leader, and we all know our own religious affiliations.

But we all know that we all need to come together to help one another, especially actually Christians helping Muslims. Because in our region is Indonesia, which is the largest Muslim nation in the world, and they need help. So the question is who will help them?

Conclusion:

So, what makes Wordly Collective innovative? Christians have already been at work among minority language communities. In fact, Wordly’s partnership with SIL International builds upon years of language work in mission. Translation services also are not new. Phone apps providing services are not new. Neither are non-profits focused on health, education, and community development. But the reality is that with all those things in place MLCs too often lackthe information they need to make informed decisions, to access new opportunities, and to move out of cycles of poverty. The innovation modeled by Wordly Collective is the creation of new opportunities through collaborative relationships. It is the connecting together of all of these contributors in one ecosystem, and then applying them together in new contexts. The result is a sustainable new offering to overcome barriers to MLCs flourishing “in the languages they value most.” By thinking holistically about the people and communities that need to be involved, Wordly is able to offer services and relationships that bring opportunity—it is social innovation to address social challenges of marginalization due to limited language access.

It is no coincidence that MLCs are also often Unreached People Groups. While Wordly Collective is a neutral platform, it is an expression of a vision for kingdom transformation to improve spiritual, physical, mental and emotional well-being. It demonstrates value for the ethnolinguistic identity and dignity of peoples. Additionally, it provides a space for humble witness—both among the MLCs and with other stakeholder organizations in the midst of interreligious collaboration. It is an invitation for followers of Jesus to apply their vocational skillsets in a broader collaborative ecosystem that aims to bridge the information gap to see minority language communities flourishing. Thus, it is also creating new opportunities for us to follow Jesus faithfully alongside these communities.

This is an article from the July-August 2021 issue: Innovation in Missions

‘Little Drops, Mighty Ocean’: An African Case Study in Partnership

‘Little Drops, Mighty Ocean’: An African Case Study in Partnership

It was a long road trip from Abuja, Nigeria’s capital city, to Latana, a rural settlement located in Billiri Local Government of Gombe State, in the northwest region of the country. The rainy season was regressing, and the dry weather was just setting in. The cool harmattan wind and the towering mango tree above us did a lot to cushion the impact of the African sun, making our outdoor meeting an entirely refreshing experience.

I was in the village to meet with the members of the Latana Chapter of the Missions Supporters League (MSL). They were pleasantly surprised at my visit. It sounded unbelievable that the International Director of MSL would travel a distance of almost seven hours to meet with “unschooled people.” Indeed, uneducated, elderly women made up a large percentage of their membership, and they reasoned that their chapter was way down the pecking order, compared to other chapters of means.

Such gestures and relationship building are an integral part of who we are in MSL. Humility and servant leadership are highly prized among us. Our membership is drawn from all strata of society, and we strive to give everyone a sense of belonging.

Vision and Mission

MSL was founded by me and my wife Nosa. She is a physicist, while I am a lawyer. After my university and law school training, I was called to the Nigerian Bar in 1985. Shortly afterwards, I took up the challenge of mobilizing resources for mission work, and this set me on the path of missions advocacy. In 1988, I set up a law office—Victor Tukura & Co. (Missions Chambers), with the primary aim of raising funds for missions. In the course of time, Nosa and I founded MSL, which serves as a platform for the mobilization of resources for global missions.

As captured in our books and other publications, the vision of MSL is: “A God-centered and dynamic missions support movement committed to the holistic transformation of peoples of the world.” Our mission statement is, “to raise prayer, financial, material support and other resources for all aspects of missions, through the mobilization of the Church for the salvation of nations.”1 The objectives of MSL are discharged through the establishment of chapters in various villages, towns and cities. These chapters are clusters of Christians from different local churches, who come together to fulfill the common goal of reaching the nations with the gospel, through missions partnership.

Why Chapters?

At the commencement of the vision, our ministry efforts were restricted to funds raised from the law office and other family sources, but God told us to go further to broaden and open things up by involving the Body of Christ (the Church). Whatever was ongoing on the family platform in praying and funding missions would only remain a drop in the ocean in view of the magnitude of need on the mission fields. But opening up channels of support for missionaries through chapters would constitute many drops that would in the long run become a mighty ocean. Consequently, we evolved a principle of “little drops, mighty ocean” in establishing clusters of Christians in mission partnership.

Problems we were trying to solve by adopting the chapter model:

  1. Multiplying available channels for the funding of missions.
  2. Trying to avoid donor fatigue that comes from individual or families for consistently bearing the burden of supporting myriad needs at the same time.
  3. Providing a more robust spiritual cover to prevent or minimize spiritual attacks that come from supporting missions if done alone.

Some advantages of the chapter model are:

  1. Provides a platform for the involvement of every Christian to pragmatically participate in the Great Commission, irrespective of status and class.
  2. Denominational barriers are broken as chapter members are made up of Christians from various denominational backgrounds working together.
  3. Little resources from each member can go a long way in accomplishing much when pulled together in a chapter, thereby creating multiplication and synergy.
  4. Adoption of a mission field or work by the members of a chapter gives them concentration and focus on service instead of dissipating resources on many needs at the same time.
  5. Mission work is backed with prayers and finances with equal intensity.
  6. Creates a bonding and fellowship between Christians within the chapter which showcases the unity in the Body of Christ.
  7. Everybody has something peculiar to bring for the advancement of the gospel work on the missions fields, e.g., giftings, expertise, experience, etc.
  8. Carrying the burden of the field is spread and shared by many and therefore less cumbersome.
  9. It creates opportunity for family involvement in missions that could endure from generation to generation, which leads to sustainability.
  10. The whole Church is strategically engaged in the task to preach the whole gospel to the whole world.

Methods and Membership

Our goal is to build bridges between Christians and Unreached People Groups, in the mission fields, by making disciples in the nations, one field at a time. It is our belief that Christians of all persuasions who are not missionaries serving God on the mission field are only at “home” to service all aspects of missions in partnership with the missionaries, by providing the resources needed to get the nations saved. Each and every Christian should, as a matter of necessity, be either a missionary or a partner, serving as yoke fellows and equal stakeholders in the mission of planting churches in the nations of the earth.

So, while MSL Chapters range in size from five to 20 persons, the numerical strength of the chapter is not the main issue. The most important thing is the commitment of the members to their collective assignment. Each chapter adopts a mission field and works with missionaries to proclaim Jesus within an Unreached People Group. Through sustained involvement in these fields, the chapters provide prayer, financial and material support to missionaries.

Prayer Thrust

Prayer is key to every missions endeavor. With this consciousness, MSL has put in place prayer platforms for members and Christians to stand in the gap for missionaries and mission work. The first platform is the prayer segment of the monthly MSL chapter meetings. In addition, the Prayer Web, which is the prayer calendar of MSL, is used to develop a global praying web of Christians for missions.

Financial and Material Support

In MSL, we have professionals like lawyers, engineers, medical doctors, judges, architects, nurses, entrepreneurs and teachers; but we also have artisans and local farmers. Some chapters periodically raise and send large sums of money to their adopted mission fields. However, some other chapters generate small amounts of money, but they do so faithfully. Some chapters send funds to their adopted mission field once a year, while others do so more frequently. Ultimately, each chapter adopts the approach that suits them.

Relationship

In the traditional ways of missions support and partnership, donors contribute money to fund mission programs and projects. In MSL, we go further by establishing a consummate relationship between the supporter and missionary. It goes beyond contributing money to establishing a viable collaboration which makes the two parties yokefellows and equal partners in the missions endeavor. The partner does not support from afar but takes personal interest in the fruitful outcome of the endeavor.

An example of this relationship between the missionary and supporters was demonstrated in what the MSL Jos chapter did sometime in year 2000. They had adopted a remote mission field located somewhere in the Mandara mountains along the Nigeria/Cameroon border for support. Accessing the field takes a six-hour trek climbing through the range of mountains from the base. The converts were constructing a church building made of mud bricks and had gotten to the roofing level. The dry season had just ended, and the rains were threatening. Any delays would bring down the whole structure and the efforts of the converts would be reduced to ground zero. Being an emergency, the missionary quickly rushed to the chapter and they promptly rallied round to raise the needed funds. Joyfully, the missionary went back to the field with all the materials required for roofing and windows. Immediately, the roofing was completed, the rains came down heavily, but the building was spared. The villagers were astonished and held the view that the God of the Christians is very powerful. He withheld the rains until the church building was completed.

One of the ways of fostering this missionary/supporter relationship is through field visitations. In this case the supporters, at the convenience of the missionary, visit the latter on the field for fellowship and encouragement. Some have even engaged in medical outreaches.

On the flip side, the missionary could be invited to spend some time with the supporters when on vacation or when he or she needs to take some time off the field. In the process, a relationship commences and is sustained over time. It is this synergy that provides the needed impetus for field work to thrive.

Mobilization and Ministry Growth

Mobilization Thrust

In order to fulfill our mandate of mobilizing the Church and creating awareness among believers, MSL has adopted some measures, which include the Senders Assembly, an annual missions conference, and state summits, which are a one-day awareness program aimed at mobilizing Christians for missions in the different state capitals. We also organize breakfast meetings where the vision of MSL is shared with the invited guests. In addition, church visitations are conducted for the purpose of creating awareness in churches.

Other forms of mobilization include the MSL New Frontiers, an arm of the ministry that specifically targets the mobilization of 10,000 youth towards various aspects of the global mission workforce within designated periods. The essence is to inculcate a missions mindset in the youth and to prepare them for the emerging new frontiers in missions.

Ministry Growth

The first chapter was established in Jos, in Plateau State, but the vision has spread steadily to other parts of Nigeria. MSL is contributing modestly, and in productive ways, to global missions, discipleship and evangelism, through the network of chapters and the adoption of Unreached People Groups. Currently, MSL has chapters spread across 22 of the 36 States in Nigeria, and we are in partnership with 25 mission agencies based in Nigeria and other African countries. So far, we have adopted more than 102 mission fields or Unreached People Groups.

MSL is gradually spreading outside Nigeria. We earnestly believe that the task of reaching the remaining unreached nations of Africa is achievable. Just imagine what could happen if a fraction of the human and material resources locked up in the African church is released for cross-cultural missions globally. Certainly, no ethnic group would remain unengaged, as all would be ultimately reached with the gospel.

Conclusion

We believe that every Christian has something to bring to the table. The salary earners and big-time businesspeople bring in their contribution, the small fish farmer brings in the proceeds of his fish farm, the petty trader brings in her small income. A little of this and a little of that, and gradually something substantial is raised for the furtherance of the gospel in the mission fields.

Through simple but strategic ways, MSL members are touching the world by doing global missions in their local chapters. It is these little drops of water dotted all around the globe that will transform into a mighty ocean, and the knowledge of the glory of God will cover the earth as the waters covers the sea. (Hab. 2:14)

Endnotes
  1. 1 MSL Handbook.

This is an article from the July-August 2021 issue: Innovation in Missions

The Discipline of Innovation: Approaching Planning Differently

The Discipline of Innovation: Approaching Planning Differently

 

 

World mission is not immune to the massive changes that are happening in our world today. In response to those changes, we see local churches engaging in mission overseas, bypassing mission agencies in the process. Churches (knowingly or unknowingly) recognized the gap between those massive changes and what is happening in missions today and simply stepped in. Most every mission leader I know admits to feeling that new pressures are emerging.

People’s giving patterns are changing. Young missionaries have different motivations than the previous generation. The mission field itself has changed. Strategic drift is keeping us from being as effective as we could be.

What does this teach us? It shows us that those who align themselves with the future are consistently better prepared. They stay ahead of the curve by having strategies in place by the time the future arrives. It’s driven by an insatiable curiosity that seeks to understand the changes happening around us; changes which others miss (Oster 2011). The more we understand these changes, the better we are at finding creative solutions we can begin implementing today.

It is not easy to do so. Our brains are hard-wired to identify familiar patterns. Pattern recognition is geared to recognizing that which has remained the same. This helps us recognize faces, learn languages, and remember where we placed our car keys. But this also hinders us from recognizing change. As a result, we ignore the important cues, that change happened faster than we realized (Hannagan 2009).

Further complicating matters, the projects we manage and the organizations we lead have inertia; individuals and finance are invested in current plans. Assuming we even fully recognized a change, we still have to convince others of its existence, then agree upon how to react. Such discussions are often held off for annual reviews, where, because there are other expedient issues needing to be discussed, any big changes simply fall off the table. Consequently, we react even slower still. Organizations are designed for stability.

With our brain’s inherent biases against change, corrective steps usually fall short of what’s actually needed (Hannagan, 2009). This results in small, but growing gaps between what we do and what needs to be done. To make matters worse, these corrections are generally reactive, rather than proactive in nature. This means we’re constantly trailing behind while change gains an increasing lead. Hannagan calls this widening gap “strategic drift.”

Strategic drift eventually increases to the point that the gaps become vast chasms. Because drift is so gradual, most organizations don’t realize the resulting chasm until it’s too late. It’s the classic boiling frog syndrome.

So, how do we recognize and fill the chasm? How do we choose the right actions amid such uncertainty?

Innovation

Peter Drucker said, “In a time of rapid change, the opportunities for improving, for getting results, are also changing rapidly. Things that were impossible or unnecessary yesterday suddenly become possible, and things that made great sense yesterday no longer make sense . . . One of the tasks of leaders is to make sure that we constantly put our scarce resources Considering multiple new future scenarios, we prayerfully explored the kind of future we wanted to emerge after the pandemic. This allowed us to take a proactive approach to the lockdowns, looking for the forces we have control over, and what other forces we can actively influence.

Now, even as life slowly returns to the “old normal,” many of our workers no longer want to engage the way they always have. They see new options to engage with greater influence. Through changing their view of the future, they’ve changed how they engage with the present.

In the end, that’s what innovation is all about.(people and money) where they do the most good… . Good intentions are no longer enough” (Hesselbein & Cohen 1999).

It might surprise you, but Peter was writing to leaders of a non-profit volunteer organization, helping underprivileged inner-city youth. He was helping the organization find the actions which would have the greatest impact on literacy and graduation. Knowing this, you may want to read that passage again.

He continues, “What we have really done is learn the discipline of innovation…It means being able and willing to abandon efforts that don’t get results—either because we don’t know how to produce results or because we are misdirecting our efforts…It’s not looking at need alone, but looking at need and opportunity…We need the discipline of innovation because in a rapidly changing society, our problems are changing” (Hesselbein & Cohen 1999).

If we enact new strategies designed to deal with changes that we recognize today, and have already happened (past tense), we simply align our organizations to the past. See the fundamental flaw? Yet, this is what most planning methodologies produce.

The most common planning tool, the SWOT analysis (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat), does nothing to envision the future, track emerging trends, analyze their interactions and explore the new horizons of tomorrow. SWOT and most planning processes merely create incremental changes in strategy, when in reality, we have to jump the chasm and get ahead of strategic drift.

A better way forward is scenario planning. It comprises a set of tools which, since the 1970s, are now becoming mission- critical business processes to most corporations and are taught in the business institutes of Ivy League schools. The traditional strategic plan is out. Scenario planning has become the practice of many of the world’s largest companies. Instead of predicting “the” future which will emerge, it’s more advantageous to think of the future in the plural, as an array of plausible futures (Hines & Bishop 2006). This helps us position ourselves favorably within a variety of different future scenarios.

A weather forecaster looks at various weather patterns and how they will interact; then a forecast is developed for the next few days and weeks (2006). As weather trends develop and change, the forecaster updates his forecast to match new emerging information. Over time, the weather forecaster develops his skills and begins to understand to which types of information he must play close attention.

Predictions are precise, exact statements about what the future will be. Forecasts, however, provide just enough meaningful information to help us make better decisions about our day: should I take an umbrella, should I delay my beach vacation, or should I buy a snowblower?

Scenario planning thinks about the future in terms of forecasting multiple scenarios. We track various trends and events impacting the environment surrounding our ministries in order to paint various probable scenarios impacting the future of our ministry. Forecasts give us information about the future that empowers us to take meaningful action in the uncertainty of today (Saffo 2007).

In the process of exploring these scenarios, we learn that there are ways we can create meaningful dialogue and influence the future as it emerges (2006). A good scenario simply helps us think about the future in a way that helps us become like the leaders of Issachar, understanding the times and knowing what to do as a result. This recent pandemic has been a perfect example of why scenario planning is so important.

Certainly life returning to “normal” was one potential scenario. In this scenario we could all plan for when borders would open up, and we could get back to our respective ministries. But other scenarios begged the question, “What if life doesn’t return to ‘normal’?”

Considering all the global forces converging upon this pandemic (political changes, technical abilities, global missions trends, indigenous church trends, etc.), allowed us to imagine several new scenarios highlighting what “might” emerge. Suddenly, a return to the “old normal,” didn’t seem as plausible as it once did.

Very early on, we used the time to retrain many of our teams. We helped them see lockdowns not as a restraint, but a gift to re-evaluate their work. The goal was to change their perspective from an “inside worker” to an “outside catalyst.”

Considering multiple new future scenarios, we prayerfully explored the kind of future we wanted to emerge after the pandemic. This allowed us to take a proactive approach to the lockdowns, looking for the forces we have control over, and what other forces we can actively influence.

Now, even as life slowly returns to the “old normal,” many of our workers no longer want to engage the way they always have. They see new options to engage with greater influence. Through changing their view of the future, they’ve changed how they engage with the present.

In the end, that’s what innovation is all about.

 

Endnotes
  1. 1 Hannagan, T. Management: Concepts & Practices (5th ed.) Harlow, England: Prentice Hall, 2009.

  2. 2 Hesselbein, F., and P. Cohen. Leader to leader (LTL): Enduring Insights on Leadership from the Drucker Foundation’s Award-winning Journal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

  3. 3 Hines, A., and P. J. Bishop. Thinking about the Future: Guidelines for Strategic Foresight. Washington, DC: Social Technologies, 2006. 

  4. 4 Oster, G. The Light Prize: Perspectives on Christian Innovation. Virginia Beach: Positive Signs Media, 2011.

  5. 5 Safo, P. “Six Rules for Effective Forecasting.” Harvard Business Review 85, no. 7/8 (2007): 122–31.

This is an article from the July-August 2021 issue: Innovation in Missions

Is This China’s Final Solution for the Uyghurs?

Is This China’s Final Solution for the Uyghurs?

Gulbahar Haitiwaji (not her real name) was a Uyghur exile in France who returned to China to sign important papers. Chinese government officials had a photo of her daughter attending a Uyghur cultural event in France where the Uyghur flag was displayed. For this reason, Mrs. Haitiwaji was regarded as a terrorist and sent to a re-education camp for two years. Such reports keep pouring in from credible publications like BBC News and The Diplomat.

The first contact between the Han Chinese and the nomadic ancestors of the Uyghurs in 130CE was positive. These ancestors were ethnic Tocharians, Buddhists who founded the Kushan Empire. City-states thrived along what we now call the Silk Road. Trade lasted for hundreds of years bringing prosperity to many. The Kingdom of Khotan, surrounded by the Kushan Empire, was especially prosperous during the time it was a protectorate of China’s powerful Tang Dynasty, which defended it from nomadic marauders.

Trade eventually shifted to the oceans rather than land-based caravans. China’s Tang Dynasty fell, and the new Song Dynasty was powerless to protect this region, which was soon ravaged by Tibetan and Turkic marauders, the Uyghurs being among the latter.

In the 900s and 1000s, there was mass conversion of Central Asian Turks to Islam, including the Uyghurs. Eventually the Uyghurs assimilated the peoples who lived in this region, which came under control of the Mongol Empire in the 14th century. It took another four centuries for the Chinese to regroup under the Qing Dynasty and conquer this area. By that time the region had fallen into poverty.

The Qing Dynasty, 1644–1911, began to refer to this region as xin jiang, meaning the “new frontier.” That name demonstrated a key difference in how the Chinese viewed this Turkic region, and today one of the five stars on the Chinese flag represents the Uyghurs. The Chinese ruled through the Turkic-speaking Muslim elite, and from the start there were rebellions. One revolt resulted in an independent government which lasted from 1867–1878. This region, called both xin jiang and Eastern Turkestan, was devoured by the Qing Dynasty and named Xinjiang in 1884.

The Qing Dynasty controlled Xinjiang until this dynasty collapsed in 1911. During the next three decades, there were attempts to create two independent Muslim states. With the rise of Mao Zedong’s Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1949, these states were taken by China.

In 1955, the People’s Republic of China created the Xinjiang Uighur “Autonomous” Region as a concession to the Turkic Muslim majority that lived there. The centralized authority of the PRC was weakened during the chaotic time of the 1966- 76 Cultural Revolution, and the Uyghurs demanded independence. Part of this was because there had been a steady stream of Han Chinese settling in their homeland. This process of making Xinjiang more Chinese accelerated in the decades to come. By 2000, 40 percent of the Xinjiang population was Han Chinese—not even including Chinese troops.

As the nearby USSR dissolved in the early 1990s, Turkic “Soviet Socialist Republic” became independent, and Uyghurs under China’s control were hoping for their own independence. Fearing a spread of such independence movements, the Chinese government doubled down by suppressing demonstrations. The Uyghur separatists went underground.

China began major development projects in Xinjiang, which brought economic prosperity to urban centers. The good jobs went to Han Chinese, while Uyghurs watched from the sidelines, growing increasingly resentful.

The Uyghurs lashed back. In 2009 there were large-scale ethnic riots in the capital city of Urumqi, and 200 perished in the bloodshed, most of them Han Chinese. From then on, the Chinese government has blamed the entire Uyghur population, regarding them as Muslim terrorists. Throughout the 2010s Uyghur terrorists conducted a blur of hijackings, riots and attacks on police stations.

Starting in the 2010s, the Chinese government became increasingly cruel in their treatment of the Uyghurs. With a population of about 12 million, about one million Uyghur men and some women have been sent to detention camps, which the Chinese government has given the euphemism “re-education camps.” Instead of the vocational training that the Chinese government tells the public they are offering, Uyghurs are subjected to endless indoctrination sessions. While they are away, their wives and children face even grimmer consequences since the Chinese want to drastically change Uyghur families to become loyal to the government. Uyghur children are sometimes “adopted” by Han Chinese families. Under the guise of what the Chinese government calls the “Pair up and become a family” program, Han Chinese monitors stay with Uyghur families every two months, work and eat with them, and even sleep in the same beds as the wives.

Women who are sent to internment camps face even greater cruelty and humiliation. A February 2, 2021 article in BBC News reports gang-rapes of interned Uyghur women. The Chinese government responded by banning BBC News from their country after this story was published. Governments have spoken out against the cruel government actions, but Beijing is far from repentant. Uyghurs who remain in China are vulnerable to incarceration if their relatives outside the country speak out.

What is China trying to accomplish? Is the end goal to terrorize the Uyghurs into submission, or is it actually genocide? There has been a forced sterilization among the Uyghurs program since 2016. They have also used forced birth control and mandatory abortions to lower the number of newborn Uyghurs. These efforts have been very successful according to a graph published by the Associated Press in June 2020.

Historically speaking, totalitarian governments do not respond to outside pressure, and China is no exception. Yet there can be pressure brought on them from above. God is much more powerful than any government, and we need to turn to Him.

  • Pray for the Lord to intervene and bring truth, justice and mercy to the situation.
  • Pray for Him to provide spiritual and emotional healing to the traumatized and for Uyghurs who have escaped and are experiencing “survivors’ guilt.”
  • Pray for the Chinese Church to be salt and light in this increasingly dark situation.

Sources:

(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/12/uighur-xinjiang-re-education-camp-china-gulbahar-haitiwaji)

(https://thediplomat.com/2015/07/troubled-today-chinas-xinjiang-has-a-long-history/)

(https://www.historytoday.com/archive/behind-times/uighurs%E2%80%99-history-china) (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26414014)

(https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/muslim-china-uighur-forced-share-beds-male-officials-detention- camps-a9185861.html)

(https://www.cato.org/blog/uyghur-genocide-shows-urgency-combatting-neo-malthusianism)

 

This is an article from the July-August 2021 issue: Innovation in Missions

Accelerating Transformation

Accelerating Transformation

I like to root for the underdogs. There’s something special about seeing a group of people overcome obstacles and achieve that which many thought impossible. This might just be part of the reason that Romania captivated my heart at such a young age.

Romania is an underdog country. As one of the poorest countries in the European Union, Romania is still overcoming the devastation of 40+ years of Communism. Problems like brain drain, human trafficking, corruption and social injustices can leave the average person feeling hopeless. Many people have chosen to leave the country in hopes of a better life.

We serve a relentless God. He is at work in this nation.

I’ve seen God raising up a generation of leaders who have a calling to bring change through all sectors of society. They aren’t willing to simply prioritize their own interests but instead are making sacrifices to help others. They have chosen to stay in the country and start a nonprofit organization or social enterprise to solve one of the many problems facing society.

One of these entrepreneurial leaders is a young man named Andrei. I first met Andrei when he was a student of Teen Challenge Romania, a substance abuse recovery program. After fighting a heroin addiction for over 13 years, Andrei got a new chance at life. He found freedom and a new purpose in life through his relationship with Jesus. After graduating from Teen Challenge and getting married, he found a great job as a manager of a restaurant owned by a local Christian businessman. While this job provided the income and security for his growing family, it didn’t satisfy his heart’s desires. God began speaking to Andrei about starting a nonprofit organization that would educate young people about the dangers of drug abuse. A few years back, he took the bold step of resigning from his job to start this new venture. These bold steps of faith are easy to read about, but often difficult to live out.

The world celebrates the successful entrepreneur, but only once an idea has been proven to work. The journey of an entrepreneur is full of struggles. While many people start out full of hope and a clear vision for their work, they often find themselves discouraged and questioning if they’ve made an irreversible mistake by starting down this path. A few of the common reasons for this discouragement are the lack of financial support and not seeing the impact as quickly as they had hoped. The risks of entrepreneurship are high, especially in developing nations. The risks of social entrepreneurship are even higher.

For too long the American Church has focused on sending missionaries and often overlooked the opportunity of equipping local leaders. In many nations, it’s far more effective to invest in leaders who are already at work and help them increase their impact. A benefit of this model is the long-term sustainability of the work. I also believe this is truly representative of how we see Paul establish the early church by building up local leaders, allowing him to move on to new communities.

At Good Bureau, a nonprofit organization in Bucharest, Romania, we want to see this nation transformed. We believe the best way to have a lasting impact in Romania is to invest in local leaders, regardless of their faith background. While seeking God on how we could best serve these emerging entrepreneurial leaders, we were impressed with the popular model of incubators and accelerators helping launch new business ventures across the globe. These programs typically last anywhere from a few weeks to a full year and provide a support system designed to grow a successful business. One of the biggest advantages of such a program is the chance to pitch investors who will provide financial capital to sustain the business during the startup phase. Another benefit is having access to a community of entrepreneurs who share their experiences and lessons learned. These types of programs were a real inspiration to us as we designed our own.

Last year we started the Good Accelerator, a 12-month program that brings concentrated funding and support along with an invitation to join a like-minded community of leaders. While the program lasts just 12 months, we see the community being a life-long investment. We desire to walk alongside these leaders during the course of their lives to offer ongoing support. The intensive effort is designed to help them launch a new mission or make an even greater impact where they’re serving already. A key element of our program is that it’s not so much about the venture itself, but about making a concentrated effort to invest in the leader behind it. We have found that the leader makes all the difference, and yet his or her own well-being is often overlooked and forgotten in the process of scaling impact. One of the ways we make this personal investment is through one-on-one coaching with our team. These coaching sessions create a space for the leaders to pause from their busy schedules and process their thoughts and feelings aloud.

Andrei joined the Good Accelerator program during the first year of starting his nonprofit, Teen Challenge Smart. We intentionally picked a leader like Andrei because we believe God has great plans for him and the work he’s doing. It’s been a privilege to journey alongside him as he’s grown in his development as a leader. The work of Teen Challenge Smart continues to flourish. Andrei and his team of volunteers are running a powerful drug prevention program in schools across Romania. Students have a unique opportunity to hear personal stories from former addicts and how their choices led to destruction. They are also leveraging social media to reach millions of young people with the devastating stories of drug abuse.

When I reflect on the lives of our faith heroes, I like to think back to their start before they were recognized and celebrated for their accomplishments. I recall that season of life when they had taken the step of faith but didn’t yet see the results coming into fruition. They stood on God’s promises but questioned the vision and their own abilities to accomplish it. I wonder if someone came alongside to encourage and support them during this difficult season. I don’t want to risk these leaders giving up on the mission before them; the stakes are too high. I want to be that cheerleader in their life. 

In this life, we are all underdogs. Thankfully, we serve a God of the underdogs. He loves using underdogs to accomplish His will. This makes sure that He gets the glory. We each have a part to play in bringing transformation to the nations. Thank you for the part you play.

This is an article from the July-August 2021 issue: Innovation in Missions

Transformation in Community: Discerning Innovative Ways Forward in Missions

Transformation in Community: Discerning Innovative Ways Forward in Missions

Introduction

Innovation often springs from a need or opportunity. There is a problem, a challenge or an issue that needs to be addressed, or changing circumstances that present new possibilities. That’s also true for missions innovation. When people think about innovation in missions, they often think about technological innovations, the use of web apps like TikTok, new ways to do translation work like Katie Kuykendall outlines in her MF article from 2018 called “There’s an App for that,”1 or ways to get the gospel into closed countries through media. These are fantastic but are not the primary area of innovation we have wanted to explore in Frontier Ventures’ Winter Launch Lab.

So what challenges or issues have grabbed our attention? We are intrigued with the challenge of exploring local and culturally relevant ways for least-reached peoples to experience new life in Jesus. This requires prayerfully discerning new ways to express and live out the gospel where it has been rejected for hundreds of years.

For example, the gospel has been in the Buddhist world for generations, but there have not been many movements to Jesus in the majority-Buddhist countries. Why is that? Another example would be the country of India, where, according to tradition, the Apostle Thomas witnessed 2,000 years ago. There are some great movements of God in India, but many castes and sections of the country have never seen a Jesus movement. Why is that, even after many centuries? These types of complex gospel challenges are the ones we would like to prayerfully consider in order to discern innovative ways forward.

We jumped in with both feet. And after a number of attempts at innovation in Muslim, diaspora, and Hindu contexts, we came to realize there was another significant barrier—an unexpected challenge. In order to pursue this type of innovation, we ourselves had to become a different type of person. There is a need for humility, flexibility, holy curiosity, self-awareness, Spirit-sensitive creativity and faithfulness in discerning how Jesus is leading. We realized that at its heart, innovation in mission is about the process of transformation as God shifts our ministry paradigms, focuses our vision and calls us into new expressions of His kingdom we might not have imagined before. In other words, we are not only seeking fresh ideas or new ways of delivering the gospel message, but we are also expecting God to reshape us in the process. Who we are matters greatly for how we see and understand the challenges, how we live in healthy relationships, and how then to creatively act and follow God’s lead in the world. Ways forward to address long-standing challenges will emerge from new ways of being in Jesus and walking alongside others at the frontiers of mission.

As a group goes through an innovation process of seeking understanding, prayerfully reflecting, and then discerning new ways forward together, everyone in the group is changed. In one innovation group we facilitated someone said, “If we take this step to consider these things, we will be changed people. This process will change us. Is that okay with us?” It is not enough just to think differently. The barriers to the gospel at the frontiers of mission are deeply spiritual, in addition to all the complex social, cultural, religious, and linguistic factors. They require us to be different.

This is why we call our innovation process a Transformation Collaborative. It is a group spiritual journey as well as a personal spiritual journey into the challenge, into the call of God to innovate.

So, in a Transformation Collaborative, who is a part of the group that will be transformed, and what is the process we follow to move toward transformative innovation?

Forming the Innovation Community

We begin with the conviction that innovation in mission will emerge from worshipping and praying communities that are committed to walking together with God and one another. While God blesses human creativity and ingenuity, He also leads and gives vision and wisdom as a community prayerfully looks to Him. Ways forward will emerge from a group that is centered in Jesus, committed to relationships like Jesus is, and who accept that God wants them to bring their full selves to the innovation process. If the desire of God is to be glorified and dwell among His people, then the ways in which we move toward that end ought to embrace the importance of unity in community.

With this communal aim in mind, formation of the group begins with one or more catalyst leaders who have some sense of call to respond to a complex gospel challenge. These are often people with expertise, capacity, and connection to rally others, to champion an issue, and possibly even to catalyze movements. Walking with them, we assist in the process of clarifying the challenge. That challenge is formulated in a question that expresses curiosity and invites further exploration. For example, how might we bridge the gap between Buddhist and Christian worldviews so that Buddhists are able to understand the gospel as Good News? Or how might we incorporate whole-person healthcare (mind, body, spirit) into the DNA of movements to Jesus? Or how might we imagine appropriate ways for Hindus to begin following Jesus and remain in their families?

With some initial direction in place, the next step is for the catalyst leaders to begin inviting a larger, diverse community of others around the challenge as members of the core team. The aim for this core team is to become a prayerful and discerning community that will explore their shared challenge together. Just by looking at the example questions above, it is quickly apparent that the core team will need to include representatives from the relevant global communities and backgrounds to meaningfully respond to these challenges.2 Bringing their whole selves to the group, the team’s diverse perspectives and life experiences of following Jesus aid in the process of exploring complex gospel challenges and being transformed together as a community in Christ.

Allow us to give you a picture of what this looks like.

The Innovation Community’s Discernment Process

When we walk with a group facing new challenges and opportunities in mission, there are some important questions we all should be asking. How is God already at work? In what ways is the Spirit inspiring us, giving us vision? As Jesus shepherds us forward, what might He be saying to us? Where do we sense He might be leading us?

Along with these prayerful questions we might also be asking, who are all the stakeholders involved—who is impacted by this challenge? Who might benefit from the creation of new opportunities? Who is missing out on life in Jesus? These questions help us to know where to begin carefully and humbly listening to others.

And underneath that we are asking, what are the deeper barriers and contributing factors? What are the relational or systemic patterns that are dysfunctional, not bearing fruit of blessing and righteousness? What is happening spiritually that might require intentional intercession?

What are the opportunities and possibilities? These questions are about making sense of the challenge. We may begin with some starting understanding, but that will only get us so far: often challenges in mission are challenges precisely because our current understanding and practice are not enough. We will need to prayerfully explore and discover new insights that point toward possible ways forward.

The Winter Launch Lab’s iterative approach to innovation and discernment encompasses three main phases (see graphic below):
• Seeking understanding around the complex problem through prayer, interviews, Scripture study, research, and experiential learning
• Prayerful reflection on emerging insights and any initial sense of where God might be leading
• Discerning new ways forward by designing creative prototype initiatives that lead to further innovative insights and breakthroughs

Throughout the process we bring together innovation practices of design and systems thinking with group spiritual discernment. That means prayer and discernment play a central role in both divergent and convergent ways of thinking.

Divergence is about exploration of our curiosities and the creation of possibilities. It widens the scope to include more information. Convergence is the opposite: it is about synthesizing information to draw out insights, limiting options, and making decisions. Normally prayerful discernment is associated with convergent thinking. We all turn to God asking for direction when we are trying to make a decision. That still holds true here: when a group needs to decide which direction to move or which prototype(s) to create and test, it is important to make space for team members to sense how God might be leading. But that is only one expression of prayer in the innovation process.

For us, discernment in innovation is about seeing rightly so that we might become wise and faithful in all our being, living and doing. Let us unpack this statement. While seeing rightly certainly includes convergence, narrowing toward decisions for ways forward, it also includes divergence as we together prayerfully explore ways to understand the challenge and envision new possibilities. In an innovation process we need the Spirit’s help and inspiration to perceive or imagine other ways of framing the challenge and creatively responding. From there, wisdom is about synthesizing the understanding and insights that emerge from beginning to see well. These insights not only signal direction for potential ways forward but can also impact and change us. They have real implications for who we are in Jesus, in the world. By sensing how God is already at work in a context and what He might desire to do to express His character and blessing, we are then also able to act faithfully. That takes place at the level of our being, as we are being conformed and transformed into His image in agreement with His purposes. It also plays out in our living and the ways we form relationships and are present to God and others. And finally, changes in our being and living will impact and shape our doing as we also discern the next practical steps to take together, in alignment with the ways we have sensed God is leading us. The journey of prayerful discovery and discernment is also the journey of transformation.

Iterative Discernment & Transformation

We in the Winter Launch Lab recognize that discernment and hearing God’s voice or leadership can be a messy and uncertain thing. Some traditions emphasize God’s will in such a way that it is a search for a specific and sometimes hard- to-find answer. It can be paralyzing. Others move in the opposite direction, suggesting that believers already know God’s general will and can follow it in many ways, believing we’re too small to disrupt God’s purposes for our lives or contexts through our decisions about career paths, spouses or houses. Our approach is somewhere in the middle, emphasizing both that God desires to speak and lead the innovating community, but that He also invites our own participation as people who are also being formed over time to desire His kingdom.

When it comes to exploring new ways for the least-reached to experience life in Jesus, we already know the general will of God—that is not the question. The issue is that there are difficult barriers where current practices and understanding are not sufficient to see new movement to Jesus. Even worse, sometimes it is our own attitudes and approaches to mission that are part of the problem! Our knowledge, wisdom, and creativity are not always enough because the things we are hoping for—God moving to bless peoples and reconcile them to Himself—are only done by God. So without creating a trapping dependency on hearing a specific set of instructions from God, in our innovation process we recognize the need to humbly and prayerfully do our best to align our hearts and intentions with God’s heart and desires.

Sometimes there are moments of great clarity where God is surely moving, speaking, and guiding in some specific directions. On other occasions ways forward may not quickly emerge, but it is that intentionality of listening, reflecting, discerning, trying small things and giving space for feedback through which we may learn and discern together how God is leading over time. It is in the midst of life that God shapes us and forms all of us, and it is in the midst of challenging contexts that we listen, reflect, and pray about next steps in an iterative way, rather than expecting God to show us the entire path at once.

Importantly, all of this happens in the context of group discernment. We hope to see groups genuinely discern and follow the will of God in the context of diverse community that brings their full selves, formed over time in their own walks with Jesus. While prayerful discernment is always a subjective matter, a group seeking God’s guidance, sitting at His feet in prayer, and listening carefully with an open mind, heart and will is a healthy and balanced starting point. In a safe space it is possible for a group to share and reflect on the ways they sense God might be leading and to practice self-awareness about the lenses through which they are hearing. This allows openness to the move of the Spirit while grounded in a space of contemplation and waiting on the Lord. It also allows the wisdom of diverse perspectives and experiences to balance the potential for quickly running in a direction of an individual’s interests. In summary, just as God forms us over time, He also forms us in the midst of community.

Conclusion

For the most difficult challenges in mission, this type of transformation is paramount. To be able to perceive and lean into the new things that God is desiring to do in the world, we need to be a different kind of people. This is not simply a deconstruction of Western missions practices, though some of that critique may be required, but an openness to being led by God into new and life-giving ways of being in Jesus outside of our cultural models and worldviews. The paths of following Jesus at the frontiers might look and sound quite different all while following the same Jesus who shepherds us.

In one Transformation Collaborative, after sitting with the Scriptures for some time, we asked the core group and catalyst leader to spend an hour or so in individual prayer. The group was going in a nice direction, and it was time to make some decisions. We did not expect what happened next. Instead of coming back from prayer fully ready to move forward, more than half the group came back and confessed to one another that they were repenting from sins and from following Jesus in ways culturally foreign to their context. The group did eventually take steps toward innovation, but the key moment of the entire time was that repentance. This transformative time of prayer and discernment was the backbone of the innovation that was to come.

In our experience to date, innovation in missions includes the whole person, bringing our full lives and selves, and that means new ways forward will include our own transformation in communities.

Endnotes
  1. 1 Kuykendall, K. (n.d.). There’s an App for That: Technology Transforms Bible Translation. Retrieved May 14, 2021, from http://www.missionfrontiers org/i.ssue/article/theres-an-app-for-that1

  2. 2 For example, movements themselves should be the ones dis- cerning and making sense of new ways forward in their contexts. To the extent that others, or particularly Westerners, are involved, they will be walking alongside and encouraging in the process.

This is an article from the July-August 2021 issue: Innovation in Missions

Toward the Edges: Innovation in a Multi-cultural Setting

Toward the Edges: Innovation in a Multi-cultural Setting

“So, brother, here in the West we have these lists of people groups, and as you know, there are organizations devoted to seeing movements to Jesus among all of the ones that aren’t reached. And ‘reached’ means…”

Unreached Peoples And Communication Challenges

I have had that conversation in various ways off and on for about 25 years, meaning I have talked about these things with believers within what would be considered Unreached People Groups. I have talked about the meaning of people groups, what the lists mean and how mission organizations view it all.

I have listened to the feedback, too. I have seen the different ways that people in those groups see themselves and their people. I have learned a lot about how some people groups on the lists see other people groups on the list.

Now, none of that has made me think that the lists are wrong or unhelpful! But my experiences have caused me to work hard at communication and at thinking about vocabulary. Of course, in many cases I was not using English, so I had the disadvantage, and advantage, of being able to use words of my choosing. In English, I needed to use long explanations.

Unreached Peoples, Innovation and Even More Communication Challenges

But more recently I have faced a different communication challenge.

How do we explain innovation? And beyond that, how do we explain it when we at Frontier Ventures are developing a unique approach to it? And how do we explain it to leaders of a movement to Jesus among a people group that is still unreached? How do we explain it relative to how that movement might use “innovation” to see a breakthrough in another people group? And how do we do all that using English but preparing for it to not be in English? To add one more wrinkle, how do we do that in a context with none of our usual tools?

Innovation in Frontier Ventures and Picking a Case Study

As others will explain further in this edition, Frontier Ventures’ approach to innovation is a unique mix. It combines design thinking and systems thinking. Those are pretty common in the “innovation world,” but Frontier Ventures adds a dimension that also blends spiritual discernment, theological grounding and a missiological focus.

The latter means we particularly aim innovation toward exploring new ways for people in least-reached people groups to experience new life in Jesus.

The process starts with a catalyst leader, who works with a core group to ask a question about a difficult or complex problem, and then the spiritual discernment and systems and design elements begin to kick in.

In the case I will relate here, this meant working with a team in South Asia. This team consisted of leaders from a large movement to Jesus as they sought to consider how to foster new approaches to reach what we now refer to as a Frontier People Group (groups with no known movement, less than .1% believers of any sort).

We were considering a particular Frontier People Group. The original framing of the question or problem was something like, “How can the barriers that keep the people from coming to Jesus be understood and overcome?”

So how did all of this work in another cultural context and with all the challenges that were presented?

Step by Step

I recently interviewed the South Asian leadership we worked with, and without going into all of the details of the process, I want to share the key insights from the interview.

“I missed a lot.”

The main interpreter mentioned this first. He had been involved through it all, had helped us design the process, had talked with us about how to understand it and explain it, etc. His assumption was that if he did all of that, he would be able to learn the process and reproduce it again.

But he felt that he did not absorb as much as he had assumed. He had to give too much of his creative energy to translation and interpretation.

But …“This was really helpful, I saw the fruit.”

He was asking how he could learn the process better. He saw how the people he brought together had responded, what they had learned about their assumptions and ways of making decisions in their own attempts to cross cultures, and how they ended up reaching more people with the good news.

However …“We didn’t reach the people group we thought this was for.”

As we proceeded, the participants did in fact gather a lot of data about the Frontier People Group that I had suggested we focus on. We learned a lot about them and confirmed that while there are some believers among them in the current movement, there is a barrier and a new movement will be needed.

But the group that gathered, as we entered spiritual discernment and listening prayer, identified several different areas of focus.

They identified a number of people groups that need movements, but none of them were the one we thought we had gathered in order to “innovate” together to reach!

A further observation…“I don’t think I gathered the right people.”

One of the most important elements in the whole innovation process is to have the right champion (which we did) and then the right “core” of people. In our case the champion determined afterward that he would have picked people differently had he better understood everything.

That led me to ask about what could have been prepared better, and he responded, “Nothing, I just needed to learn more about the process”.

And More

Other points of learning our friend reported:

“We gained a whole new understanding about why certain peoples are not coming into our movement.” “We understand better why this is hard, why some people are harder to reach.”

“We thought we understood how to reach Muslims in our country but we really only understood how to reach our people.”

(from a participant) “I never really noticed that in my area all these people were living. I just never thought about them. Then God told me to reach them, and I saw I would have to change my way of speaking and dressing and much more”

“Having outsiders there on the one hand was not a problem, but it meant we needed to be sure everyone understood why.”

“Using inductive Bible study helped us because that is what we do in our normal lives.” (Note, this was a change the Frontier Ventures team made)

And … a Surprise

I said above that our process resulted in specific new efforts to reach some Unreached People Groups, but not the one I had assumed or suggested.

However, just asking the questions, gathering the data and experimenting in other peoples has resulted in our trial people group landing on the radar of the movement leaders, and there has been a trickle of people starting to come to faith.

Edges to Edges

This case study is an abbreviated example of how working at the edges can lead to new insights, new approaches, and also to new edges!

This is an article from the July-August 2021 issue: Innovation in Missions

Doing Contextualization in Cambodia: Communities of Dialogical Practice

Doing Contextualization in Cambodia: Communities of Dialogical Practice

The Gap Between Theory and Practice

Contextualization, especially in highly pluralistic Asia, is needed more than ever in the 21st century. The rise of Asia is unfortunately accompanied by a disenchantment with the West and its religion—Christianity. The pandemic is precipitating reverse globalization and intensifying ethnocentric and nationalistic sentiments.

However, contextualization is a project in malaise. It is an old topic, originally conceptualized in the 1970s. Fifty years on, the gulf between talk and practice has not significantly closed. At three separate forums in early 2021, Asian thought leaders were still appealing to Christians to do contextualization. The question that begs to be answered is, “Why isn’t contextualization implemented?”1

This article is a reflection on promising activities in Cambodia in the last few years. By creating communities of dialogical practice committed to exploring the intersection of faith and culture, the Cambodian Church is inching forward in crafting out a distinct Khmer Christian identity. It is hoped that this report may encourage more robust practices of “being and doing church” in Asian contexts.

Faith and Culture Work by EFC

The “Faith and Culture Committee” of the Evangelical Fellowship of Cambodia (EFC) was started in 2016 for the purpose of researching and teaching contextual theology. Three ongoing projects are “Christian Wedding Ceremony according to Cambodian Culture,” “Christian Birth and Death Ceremonies according to Cambodian Culture” and “Can Cambodian Christians tvaibongkum (worship) Their Parents?” The former two will be published in the Khmer language, and the latter, which was co-presented by Tep Samnang, the Director of EFC and by me at the SEANET mission conference in January 2020, is slated to soon become available in English.

The tvaibongkum project is an interesting one. According to Khmer customs, all children of any age should ritually demonstrate their respect by bowing to their parents on special occasions—this ritual act is called tvaibongkum. However, the Cambodian word tvaibongkum is translated into English and understood as “worship” among Christians. This poses a problem. The issue of Christian prohibition of “worshipping” parents and the ancestors is similar to that caused by the Jewish insistence of circumcision in the first century church. In this article, I thus frame my reflection on the process of contextualization according to some lessons drawn from the landmark debate of Acts 15.

6 Ps of Contextualization

1. Participatory—Being collectivistic in culture, Cambodians do not conceive contextualization as the work of an individual theologian; rather, it is carried out communally and includes diverse voices. The account in Acts 15 provides a model of such a communal and participatory approach. A sharp dispute between two competing views on circumcision had broken out (Acts 15:2), and to resolve the issue, the Jerusalem Council (of apostles and elders) convened before the church. (Acts 15:4,22) After much discussion (vs. 7), a carefully negotiated response was crafted. This narrative shows us that each “stakeholder,” regardless of his/her ideological position, should participate and contribute to the contextualization dialogue so that discussions may be rigorous and a shared decision may be made.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Cambodia (EFC) is comparable to the Jerusalem Council; it is an umbrella association under which churches and Christian organizations are registered. The EFC Faith and Culture committee of eight people, representing heads of denominations, principals of seminaries, and leaders of Christian organizations, organizes forums in different provinces to engage with pastors all over Cambodia. The response to such forums is overwhelming, indicating the relevance and pertinence of the subject matter. “Ninety percent of Cambodian pastors are favorable of doing contextual theology,” said Tep Samnang, the Director of EFC, “some are disagreeable, but it’s okay, in everything there will be some objections.”

2. Practical—One of the most striking features of the Cambodian approach of contextualization is the decision to center the work of theologizing around ritual. The subject of debate in Acts 15, similarly, revolved around a ritual— circumcision.

Tep Samnang explained, “The customs of ka (marriage), kart (birth), and kok (burial) are the three most important things in the life of Cambodian people. To focus on doctrinal theology is challenging for Christians, and even Cambodian pastors.” Ritual, on the other hand, is a Khmer way of life and an Asian spirituality. Ritual is not a pure religious category, as Christians commonly deem so; to evaluate it solely through the tenets of dogma does not justify what ritual means to the whole person and his/her whole life in community.

This primacy of ritual practice over abstract doctrine is also apparent in a conversation I had with two Cambodian monks studying at a Buddhist university. I had asked them what the central Buddhist kolethi (Cambodian Christian word for doctrine) are, and they curiously asked me what I meant as kolethi? It dawned on me that the way faith is practiced in the Christian religion based on the critical analysis of Scriptural text and formulation of doctrinal concepts is not the way Cambodians conceive religion. The Venerable Chuon Nath (1883–1969), the father of Modern Buddhism in Cambodia, taught Buddhism as propriety of behavior, and the proper way to behave as a Cambodian Buddhist is largely expressed ritually, through specific behavioral enactments or customs of relating to one another in daily life and special occasions.

Thus, doing contextual theology through ritual may be considered as an indigenous way of knowing (epistemology). A lot of contextualization done by current scholarship revolves around theological and doctrinal theses—a product of European Enlightenment, privileging mind over body and reason over experience. This could be one explanation for the tardiness of the contextualization project in Asia; we could be using the wrong tool for the job.

3. Pastoral—Doing contextualization is not just about acquiring and applying yet another new set of methodological techniques; rather, it is about nurturing a pastoral posture emanating lovingkindness (metta)—a cherished Khmer virtue. In this setting, metta is expressed as a willingness to patiently listen to the other, to empathetically understand and sincerely appreciate the other.

In the contextual approach employed by the Cambodian Church, exegeting culture is more than intellectually analysing the doctrinal meanings and functions of ritual acts. One needs to intuitively capture the affective meanings as well—the psychological, familial, social, and moral implications. Contextualization is not a rationalistic and evaluative exercise, assessing “right” from “wrong.” Rather, it calls for a “gentle, humble” and pastoral disposition toward the other, seeking to appreciate and affirm “whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure.” (Matt. 11:29, Phil. 4:8)

Paul and Barnabas exhibited this kind and pastoral posture. In Acts 15, they noted that circumcision “troubled their [Gentile] minds” (Acts 15:24), and made it “difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.” (Acts 15:19) It is apparent that they empathized with how the Gentiles thought and felt about the ritual practice of circumcision. Compassion superseded orthodoxy.

Similarly, listening to Cambodians, tvaibongkum is understood as a profoundly reverential and honorable way of demonstrating respect, gratitude and affection to one’s parents. Not to do so is an unthinkable behavior. Tvaibongkum is more of a social and moral category, and does not carry the same weight of religious nuance of “worship” implicit in Christian parlance.

4. Perceptive—One of the key points of Barnabas and Paul’s persuasion in the Acts 15 debate was the apparent evidence of God’s presence among the uncircumcised Gentiles through signs and wonders. (Acts 15: 12) Peter and James also recognized the undeniable movement of the Holy Spirit among the Gentiles. (Acts 15: 7-9, 13, 15, 17, 28) “See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland.” (Isa. 43:19) Contextualization calls for prayerful discernment of God at work in unfamiliar yet creative ways. It invites us to exercise restraint from being judgmental and too quickly labeling something different as heresy or syncretism.

Perceptive intuition is not an invalid way of knowing, according to Buddhist epistemology. In addition to the faculties of reason, perception is a form of knowing that comes from contemplating lived experiences, and raising insights leads to the realization of truth. Interestingly, in Acts 17, Paul invited the Athenians to “feel their way toward [God] and find Him.” (Acts 17:27) It is apparent that in the philosophical tradition of the Age of Reason, perception has been dismissed and even ridiculed.

In the tvaibongkum project, research revealed at least three cases in which godly men and women of vibrant churches are creating innovative ways to redeem the custom of demonstrating reverence to parents without compromising Christian allegiance to God. God is at work, and the Christian faith is blossoming in new ways in Khmer soil.

5. Pro-creative—The Jewish Council saw that God was doing something new among the Gentiles, and what they saw renewed their hermeneutical paradigm and transformed their theological interpretation. Re-reading an old prophecy in an illuminating new way, James redefined what “people of God” meant: from one that was ethnocentric, exclusively referring to Israel as God’s chosen, to one that includes “the rest of mankind” and “all the Gentiles.” (Acts 15:17) Similarly, Paul had a more nuanced interpretation of the doctrine of circumcision. Emphasizing the spirit of the law rather than its letter, he censured the legalistic demands of physical circumcision and preached on the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit. (Rom. 2:25-29)

Instead of imposing predetermined theological conceptions, the Jerusalem Church allowed God to transform their long-established theological ideas. The hermeneutical process that we see here is one that oscillates between text and context, one that is deeply rooted in the Word and yet sensitive to the work of the Holy Spirit in the present and to God’s continued authorship in writing history.

Re-reading Scriptures through Khmer eyes, it was noted that Moses bowed before his father-in-law, Jethro, a Midianite priest (Exod. 18:7), King Solomon bowed before his mother, Bathsheba (1 Kings 2:19), and Abraham even bowed before three strangers (Gen. 18:2) and the Hittites. (Gen. 23:7) The Hebrew word used for “bow” in all these verses is shachah, the same word for “worship” to God (Gen. 22:5) and the prohibition of “worship” of idols. (Exod. 20:5) The Khmer notion of tvaibongkum parallels the Hebrew practice of shachah. As explained to me by a Cambodian monk, the word tvaibongkum simply refers to an outward demonstration of respect and does not carry the meaning of worship as Christians define it; another Khmer word bozhea would come closer to worship.2

6. Peaceable—In Acts 15, the Jewish Council did not just “repeal” the law of circumcision for the Gentiles, they negotiated a holistic response. They recommended that the Gentiles followed certain purity codes so as to maintain the unity of fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. The Council exercised the principle of 1 Cor. 10:32-33: not being a stumbling block to Jews, Gentiles or the Church of God. Contextualization involves a complex negotiation of different relations.

Leveraging the core Khmer value of harmony and conflict-avoidance, the Cambodian process of contextualization endeavors towards peace-building relations by honoring indigenous socio-cultural norms:

  • a) Deference is given to Christian elders. It took more than a year to seek the endorsement of certain senior pastors who are well respected in the Cambodian community. The contextualization endeavor is owned and led by mainstream players; it is not a fringe activity of a maverick or young leader who has been groomed in foreign methods and manners.
  • b) Respect is given to the Buddhist community. Christian pastors in the tvaibongkum project engaged with Buddhist monks, temple leaders and elders in the community, and even engaged with explaining the Christian dilemma and in seeking suggestions.
  • c) Esteem is given to the governing authorities. Christian pastors and leaders are keenly aware of the importance of developing positive relations with the local governing authorities. The book, Christian Wedding Ceremony according to Cambodian Culture, when published this year, will be gifted to the Ministry of Cult and Religion to demonstrate Christian cooperation to “Khmerize” Christianity.

Envisioning Communities of Dialogical Practice

This Cambodian case study provides some nuanced insights for an innovative practice of contextualization. Building on the concepts of critical contextualization and the hermeneutical community endowed to us by Paul Hiebert, I wish to describe a community of dialogical practice based on a reading of Acts 15. The work of contextualization by such a community of dialogical practice is:

  1. participatory—it involves a community and invites its members not to just sit and talk with one another, but actively engage with Christians and non-Christians outside the inner circle, experimenting and innovating practices, and critically reflecting together.
  2. practical—it does not dichotomize faith and life, doctrine and practice; theologizing is performed within the locus of ritual action.
  3. pastoral—rather than executing contextualization as an analytical project with an evaluative mentality, it is approached as an appreciative inquiry with an empathetic heart. Change is not imposed from without, but compelled from within.
  4. perceptive—contextualization calls for intuitive discernment. It is not a unilinear process employing didactics; it is a spiral process employing dialogics.
  5. pro-creative—instead of translation of forms and/or meanings, it is co-creation, birthing something anew.
  6. peaceable—contextualization by a community of dialogical practice is not merely a theological exercise; it is a relational endeavor and an intricate negotiation.

I hope that this report of the Cambodian Church may encourage others to persevere in exploring and experimenting new localized expressions of faith for the sake of the gospel. 

Contextualization is a very difficult thing to do. It challenges deeply ingrained understandings and practices and demands radical and uncomfortable shifts in mindsets.

Endnotes
  1. 1 See Contextualization: The Theory, The Gap, The Challenge by Darrell Whiteman (1997) for a review on this topic. “Why Isn’t Contextualization Implemented?” is the title of Chapter 5 in Appropriate Christianity by Charles Kraft. Two forums, “Missions Perspectives in Asia,” were organized by the Singapore Centre for Global Missions; the third forum is Lausanne Regional Listening Call (Southeast Asia).

  2. Hear the interview with the monk on this at SCGM Mission Resource Hub App, available at all app stores.

This is an article from the July-August 2021 issue: Innovation in Missions

Rich Soil for Spiritual Innovation

Rich Soil for Spiritual Innovation

Imagine the scene: we’re at the final interview for an Executive Director role of a 100-year-old ministry. The Board has just offered the position to us, but the Board Chair shared a caveat, “Do not say yes to this position unless you are 100% sure you’ve heard from God that He wants you to accept this role.”

It was clear in the interviews that the ministry, with ten acres of land and five buildings, had struggled financially. It was at a crossroads and needed new innovative initiatives to help it move forward sustainably. The question of hearing from God is not new for any of us, so, after compelling evidence through prayer and discernment, we decided to jump in headfirst into a context that needed a new approach of thinking and living—and to our surprise—it came partially through the son of a Tasmanian fisherman who first coined the phrase “permaculture” (“permanent agriculture”). In fact, we had heard about permaculture from a close friend who was planning to farm an acre on our property and had just completed a course on permaculture. For academic purposes, permaculture is “the conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive systems which have the diversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems. It is the harmonious integration of the landscape with people providing their food, energy, shelter and other material and non-material needs in a sustainable way” (What Is Permaculture ?, n.d.). “Permies,” as they are often called, preach of “working with, rather than against, nature” and of engaging in “protracted and thoughtful observation, rather than protracted and thoughtless labor.”

For our purposes, permaculture principles gave us a new framework to imagine and live out God’s creative genius on our campus. In fact, how we interpreted permaculture was certainly not the original intent of those who developed the concept. However, when we reflected on the principles and what we could learn from them, we began envisioning deep design parallels with biblical stories and the values of our mission. As we prayed and interacted with our team, community, and friends that included people from around the world who live and study on our campus, inside and outside our faith tradition, it was clear God was calling us to something different, something more organic and natural in a permaculture sort of way.

We see connections between innovation and spirituality woven into our context where we intentionally engage with people of other faiths in our community. Our mission is to welcome people from around the world to live and study on our campus. In fact, we frequently have a dozen or more nationalities living in the International House, with another dozen studying in our newly- accredited academic English program.

Our campus has been a place of refuge for orphans, troubled teens and international students (in that order) for over 100 years. God has been orchestrating symbiotic activities that have thrived here throughout that time. As we prayed and discerned, we began to dream about how thriving could occur once again on this property while reflecting on the permaculture principles we were applying to our land and work. Permaculture has 12 main principles that aligned loosely with our mission to care for people, community and creation. For sake of brevity, below we’ll share just five of the permaculture principles with related stories.

Permaculture Principle 1: Observe and Interact

This principle emphasizes being observant to what is around us. So, we spent months in a design and innovation discernment process, walking our property, sitting quietly on campus, and interacting with friends, neighbors, students and residents while observing our natural and ministry context. We began seeing the organic around us taking shape—we just needed to cultivate the cross-pollination and co-supporting activities while recognizing the gifts we already had in the living things and components all around us. In fact, the web of cross -pollination seemed endless as our gardening, composting, continuing education offerings and prayer garden with a pond all naturally nurtured to another in our community. This also helped us relax into a posture more of observing “what is God doing” rather than “what do we have to do to make something happen.” That isn’t to say that we didn’t (and still don’t) nurture projects and keep them movingn forward or need great patience when there is a lull in activity, but I guess you could say we’ve also become more participant observers in planning for kingdom results in our ministry.

Permaculture Principle 2: Catch and Store Energy

This principle suggests there are energy and resources that, if given the opportunity to grow, could also be valued, treasured and stored for continued use. The ideas that were generated during the discernment process were seeds ready to sprout to life. Many ideas were easily transferable, like catching rainwater for use in our garden. Others involved more time to mature, like making space for community life on the half-acre adjacent to our international house. So we involved all acting participants, harvesting the feedback from those who lived here, visited here, worked here or lived nearby while taking the time to discern which of their ideas to launch as prototypes of projects that had potential—that may or may not fail. In these ways we thought that we could “catch and store” energy that could take root over time and recycle itself in exciting symbiotic ways on our campus. Our mission and commitment to People Care, Community Care and Creation Care was stored perennial energy waiting to fulfill multiple functions toward sustainability.

Permaculture Principle 8: Integrate Rather than Segregate, a Reflection on Care of Community

This principle values collaboration and cooperation of a variety of community players. Obviously, every person who comes to our campus is already part of a community they left. But, when they arrive here, we are pleasantly challenged to care for them individually because we live in close proximity. This gets played out in very tangible ways. While Miriam was here visiting from Egypt, she was wrestling with a major decision. Knowing our spiritual inclination, and having gotten to know us through shared meals, she chose to seek out our advice. Also, being a business major, she learned of a local business employing local refugees that one of our board members owns. Miriam was excited by the coaching times she received, and the practical learning experiences gained. She also loved to see the surrounding community come on campus for our monthly farmer’s market and asked to sell some of her native food. She did quite well at the market and gave all her proceeds back to our ministry, which was used to purchase a book to teach the Enneagram to students who came the following year.

Permaculture Principle 11: Use Edges and Value the Marginal, a Reflection of Care for People

We related this principle to Jesus’ ministry, specifically who he was attracted to and who he cared for. Another master’s level student named Sarah from South Africa, who was studying at the nearby university, came and brought great energy to our small campus. We had many thoughtful spiritual conversations with her. She attended our house church and later met with a staff member for further clarification of the conversation. A large church in the area which loves serving our residents took her and other students on a kayak trip. This greatly facilitated her sense of belonging with the broader community. Once when we were tutoring high school students from Nepal in the dining room of the house, she walked through after classes and asked what we were doing. When I told her, she excitedly offered to help out once a week. The students loved being tutored by her.

Permaculture Principle 12: Creatively Use and Respond to Change, a Reflection on Care of Creation

And finally, a story about stewarding and caring for our property which demonstrates in a practical, welcoming way our love of creation and the invitation to others to experience God in the space. There had been a small pond and garden that disappeared in the overgrowth some years ago. After a local business dedicated a workday on campus, the pond was cleaned out. This gave us the inspiration we needed as a staff to weed and plant flowers. Residents and local neighbors were invited to join us. Slowly, a prayer garden was formed. Now, locals who walk by are invited to sit on the benches along the winding path to rest. The small sign leading the way reads, “welcome to all who seek peace.”

We also hope that they will feel welcome to join us for a cup of coffee at our pop-up café on Fridays.

This pop-up café is an example of learning through prototyping and moving from one iteration to another. We found that this weekly café became more successful when we tried mixing it into our monthly farmer’s market. Integrating the café into the narrative of our monthly events gives the community a connection point and invitation to stop by and join us weekly.

As you can see, we have been captivated by permaculture design, which we interpreted for our context as a unified and multi-dimensional ecosystem working symbiotically within our mission.

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

Understanding Human Nature and Money

Understanding Human Nature and Money

YOU WOULD THINK that after thousands of years of human history, people would have achieved a greater understanding of human nature and would be able to avoid the inevitable pitfalls that come with that human nature. But like the driver who hits the same pothole every day on his way to work, we keep making the same mistakes with money in missions, apparently learning nothing from the bad experiences of others. Perhaps the problem is human nature itself. Most parents have experienced the frustration of watching their kids make bad choices in life, which could have been avoided if only these kids had taken the time to learn from the mistakes of others. This issue of MF is your opportunity to learn from others in regard to the dangers of foreign funds in missions. You are not doomed to make the same tragic mistakes others have made over and over again. It is time

to study human nature as it relates to money and make the proclivities of human nature work for us in our quest for establishing indigenous movements to Christ in every people, and not against us.

Money is Psychologically Powerful

It is an understatement to say that money is an important part of our lives. God considers it important too. There are 2,000 verses in the Bible concerning money and its use, while only 500 on prayer. Our lives are spent working day by day to earn money for the essentials of life. Money is a medium of exchange for our time spent   at work. It represents compensation for a significant portion of our entire life span as individuals. It is no surprise then that money or the lack thereof impacts our emotions, our thinking and our behavior in dramatic ways. People will often lie, cheat, steal and worse to get more money. In fact, some statistics say that church leaders embezzle more money than is given to missions each year. So it should also be no surprise that money in missions can negatively

impact the understanding of the gospel and its spread in major ways. It is quite common in the history of missions for people to feign allegiance to Jesus in order to get the goodies the missionaries have brought. See our lead article, “What Have You Brought For Us?” starting on page 8. It is also very typical for money to stifle the growth of Disciple Making Movements as the influx of foreign funds impacts the thinking and behavior of its recipients.

No Substitute for Good Character and Hard Work

In the West we often think that money can solve all problems. But this is demonstrably false as seen in the case of Haiti. Billions upon billions of dollars have poured into this impoverished island nation with no apparent improvement in the grinding poverty that suffocates the hopes and dreams of the Haitian people. How can this be? There is one thing missing from this equation—the response of the Haitian people. How has the flood of foreign funds affected the thinking and behavior of the Haitian people? Has it made them more industrious

and hard working or less so? It is a fact of reality that no amount of money can replace the hard work, ingenuity and innovation of people. It is human beings that create wealth through their hard work and good character.

You can give every person in Haiti or homeless person in Los Angeles a beautiful new home, but unless these people demonstrate good moral character and hard work, that beautiful new home will soon become a wreck and the money spent for these homes is wasted. The question then for economists is, “How do you motivate and incentivize people to create wealth through hard work and good character?”

A similar question for us as Jesus followers is, “How do you motivate and encourage people to make disciples and plant churches?” Some think money is the answer, but as we can see in this issue of MF, money is often a disincentive to what we want to see in ministry. The money becomes the focus of peoples’ attention, not the love

of Christ and a love for others that compels these people to sacrifice their own time and money to bring the gospel to others. In many cases people come to believe that they cannot do ministry without foreign money and so all their efforts cease.

It’s Robbery!

As followers of Jesus we have the God-given privilege of giving to the Lord and working to see the gospel increase in the area where the Lord has placed us. This privilege is passed on to those we seek to reach both near and far.  When we use our missions dollars to try to “speed up” the spread of the gospel among the unreached by paying people, we discourage the unreached from giving themselves and their resources to the Lord for the work of ministry. We are robbing them of the joy and privilege of seeing the Lord bless and multiply what they give to Him. The foreign money not only does not speed up the spread of the gospel, it actually hinders it as it discourages the people being reached from taking personal ownership of the process of making disciples and planting churches. When someone gives of their own hard earned money and time to reach others with the gospel, they take a personal interest in the success of that ministry. As some might say, “They’ve got skin in the game.” No amount of money can replace this sense of ownership. In fact, money keeps it from taking place. The manpower and resources to fuel the harvest among the unreached must come from the harvest field itself.

When we see a baby chick struggle to emerge from its egg, our compassionate heart wants to help it out so it does not have to struggle so much. But in doing so, we rob that baby chick of the strength it gains from that struggle, which is essential for its survival. By helping we are hurting. When it comes to missions, our big hearts want to help people so they won’t have to struggle so much. But by doing so, we rob them of the internal strength and local resources they will need to foster a movement to Christ in their midst. That is a price too high to pay.

Guest Editor

The next issue of Mission Frontiers for July-August will be guest edited by the leader of the Frontier Ventures Launch Lab. 

Support the Work of Mission Frontiers

As is the case with most publications, Mission Frontiers cannot cover its costs from subscriptions alone. We need additional funds from those who believe in this ministry and are willing to sacrifice to help us move forward in casting vision for Kingdom Movements in all peoples. Like most of the people who work for Frontier Ventures, my salary is supplied by the donations of churches and friends who believe in what I am doing. And also like many staff members at Frontier Ventures, there are many months when not enough comes in to fully cover our allotted salary. To donate to my ministry with MF go to http://www.frontierventures.org and click on the Donate button. Put MA 323 in the dialog box. If you would like to help MF cover its general expenses and expand its influence, go to the same web address, given above, click on the Donate button and put MA 030 in the dialog box. We greatly appreciate whatever you can do to help Mission Frontiers and Frontier Ventures continue its work to see Kingdom Movements emerge in all peoples.

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

Your Part in God’s Story: An Interview with Author Steve Addison

Your Part in God’s Story: An Interview with Author Steve Addison

MF: Why did you write Your Part in God’s Story?

Steve: For years I’ve been fascinated by the stories of when Jesus rose from the dead and faced a band of disciples who were defeated and disillusioned. Just like us! Luke tells us that it took Jesus just forty days to restore them and prepare them for a worldwide mission. How did He do that?

Jesus took His disciples from Moses to Malachi—He opened their minds to understand the great movement of God. He showed them how the Scriptures are fulfilled in His sufferings, His victory, His mission to make disciples of all nations. That’s how these disciples discovered their part in God’s story. Then Jesus sent them out into the world with His authority. This is not just an academic exercise. God continues His mission today, through us, by His Word and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Over the last few years I’ve been working through every book of the Bible asking the questions: What’s God’s mission? What part do we play? How does He shape us? What does He want us to do? The more I studied, the more excited I got to discover the one story that unites all the stories of Scripture. I wanted to give people that same experience.

MF: What’s the “big idea” in your book?

Steve: The center of the book for me is the Risen Lord Jesus encountering failed disciples and turning them into a mighty missionary force. He did  this by teaching them from His Word, empowering them with the Spirit and giving them the core missionary task to make disciples of the nations. This is the very heart of what He came to do.

He is still at work today through His Word and the Holy Spirit to walk us through the whole of Scripture and reveal who He is as Savior, Lord and coming King. He wants to teach us God’s story and show us our part in it. Nothing could be more important. If we let Him do that in our lives, we will never be the same.

MF: What’s the format?

Steve: 40 key passages from Genesis to Revelation in 40 days. You can do the 40-Day Challenge as a group, as an individual or a combination of both. You read the passage and then read what I’ve written. I unpack the significance of each passage and show how each one links to a greater story—God’s story. Then you respond to what you are learning about your part in God’s story.

MF: Were there any surprises for you in writing the book?

Steve: One surprise was God’s persistence in wanting to include us in His story.

Take Jonah, for instance. The call of God comes on his life and he runs in the opposite direction. He had good reason; the Assyrians were cruel and evil in their oppression of the peoples they conquered. God chases after Jonah and through judgment and mercy seeks to win Jonah over to His cause—the offer of forgiveness if Nineveh will turn from evil. I’m amazed by His mercy on an evil empire but also His persistence with Jonah, the reluctant nmissionary. God never gave up on Jonah.

Then there is Jesus’ calling of His first disciples. They had been fishing all night and caught nothing. This carpenter comes along and tells fishermen how to fish. Jesus shattered Peter’s world with a miraculous catch. While Peter is broken before Him, confessing his sinfulness, Jesus tells him that from now on you’ll be following Me and learning how to fish for people. If Peter will follow, Jesus will teach him how to make disciples. If Jesus does that for Peter, He’ll do the same for each one of us.

MF: What do you hope people will gain from reading Your Part in God’s Story?

Steve: What Jesus did for those first disciples He can do for us today. He met them in their failure. He opened their minds to His Word. He showed them their part in God’s story. He promised the power of the Spirit. Then He set them loose on the world!

That’s my prayer for everyone who reads this book.

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

Dependency is a complicated issue!

Dependency is a complicated issue!

This edition of Mission Frontiers is addressing questions about “dependency.” Raising this in MF is fitting, as our focus on movements will naturally take us to the conversation about how movements to Jesus resource themselves, and how they avoid dependency, and with it the flip side of dependency which is “control,” as exercised through the golden rule: the one with the gold makes the rules.

Dependency is a two-sided problem. While mission organizations and leaders rightly caution against creating dependency, and while frequently it is assumed the problem is with those who are dependent, it is also true that some workers use funds and resources to maintain control. In addition, in some cases, the funding provided by outside workers also creates the ongoing need to be involved; so, there are times when both the outside and local partners are dependent on the financial arrangement. I know of cases in which, if it were not for money, workers would cease to have a role at all and might feel that if they don’t give funds they could be in danger of losing the rationale for being involved at all. Ultimately, this could lead to losing the “cause” for which they are raising support, including their own support.

For all of us who raise support (myself included), it is important that we acknowledge that we benefit from a certain type of dependency. So then, is dependency in and of itself actually and always a bad thing?

My view of partnership is shaped by many things, but perhaps most profoundly by my reading of Philippians and Paul’s usage of the term “koinonia.” I was first inspired to dig deeply into this by a colleague in the early 2000s and every time I re-read Philippians, I find new treasure.

The question is: is it a healthy dependency or not? My premise? That healthy dependency is part of authentic life in the gospel, and is marked by several things we see in Philippians and koinonia as used there. Healthy dependency is in essence rooted in our total dependence on God, our shared dependence on one another, and also on a shared life lived in service of a shared purpose.

Philippians 1 speaks of a koinonia, a sharing, in the Good News and in the grace that comes from this. (Phil. 1:5, 6) That is directly connected to our common experience of the Good News of God’s grace in Jesus of course, but Paul also does more than imply that our koinonia in the Good News is connected to how we share with each other in its advance. That is, in fact, one primary purpose for Paul in writing Philippians: to share how the Good News is advancing, and how the Philippians have assisted that advance through their giving.

In some ways Paul is dependent on the Philippians, although this is mitigated by Paul’s, I think very sincere, comments about not seeking such a gift and his statements about being content with or without it. Another mark of healthy dependence is in evidence here: giving or not giving does not seem to affect the deeper relational reality.

Philippians 2 speaks of a koinonia in the Spirit, or in spirit, it is not fully clear which. (Phil. 2:4) Perhaps for Paul the distinction is not as binary as for us. The verse comes at the conclusion of a section in which Paul is highlighting a unity of purpose he hopes the Philippians will more and more deeply share. It is also written in the context of saying things like “looking out for each other’s interests,” and pivots to a whole section about giving up rights and claims and serving one another.

Healthy dependency is rooted then in the heart and example of Jesus, and of a surrender of status and rights. Too often the cautions about dependency are aimed at the supposedly dependent ones. Philippians addresses the heart and value system of the “giver.”

Philippians 3 dives even deeper. In 3:10, Paul writes about his own desire to share (koinonia) in the sufferings of Christ. This is in a section devoted to some of Paul’s most detailed biography and transparent spiritual longing.

Healthy dependency is possible if we are all, together, mutually, rooted in Christ so deeply that we long to share with Him in the hard things, and thus with each other in the hard things.

Philippians 4 speaks most directly to our topic (4:15 especially). Paul speaks of the matter of sharing/koinonia in the area of “giving and receiving.” It is mutual. It is sincere. Healthy dependency is marked by these qualities.

It is also helpful to recall the context of Paul’s letter. He writes from prison. He planted the Philippian church. That pioneer planting effort is now what modern missionaries would refer to as “one of his supporting churches.” He is, in this sense, dependent on a church he planted.

A cursory reading of the above, and a look at the articles in this MF will be enough to show the reader how vastly different the mission enterprise today is from the pages of the New Testament. This is largely inescapable since our world is vastly different. But I see in Paul what might be called an embracing of dependency. And one of my questions of myself when I reflect on my own life and work is the question, “Kevin, if you were dependent in more of the ways you see in Philippians, how would your frontier church-planting have been different?

How would your own spiritual life have been different? How would the movements you see now have emerged differently?”

For me, the question is not whether dependency is good or bad, or how it can be avoided, but what kind of dependency are we called to, and do we, do I, have the courage to embrace it?

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

Mission Co-Dependency: Its Symptoms, Long- Term Effects and Prevention

Mission Co-Dependency: Its Symptoms, Long- Term Effects and Prevention

Editor’s Note: The following article comes from the perspective of those who believe in foreign funding of indigenous mission work. The article provides some helpful insight into the many problems that can arise from foreign funding as well as some potential solutions. The other authors in this issue would generally take the position that any foreign funding is dangerous to the development of indigenous Kingdom Movements and that the funds to fuel the harvest should come from the harvest field.

Ralph Winter called it the Gutzlaff Syndrome. Named after one of the earliest fiascos in Protestant mission history, the Gutzlaff Syndrome is a form of mission co-dependency where the patrons and clients of a mission- field endeavor become mutually dependent on pseudo-results in a field-based con. You may be wondering, “Does this really happen?” It does, and more often than you might think.

Karl Gutzlaff was a “missionary” to China in the 19th century who began promoting the idea of paying Chinese nationals to do evangelism and church-planting. He may have been the first person in mission history to build a ministry around this paradigm. His sensational promotion of the potential of native evangelists is what inspired a young Hudson Taylor to believe the whole of China could be rapidly evangelized. Of course, Karl was half-right. The problem was he didn’t understand enough of Chinese culture to know he was being duped. None of the reports he was receiving were true. His “evangelists” turned out to be con-artists.

The nature of the Gutzlaff Syndrome is that its deception becomes self-perpetuating. In the beginning the deception is almost always unwitting, but in the end it becomes a necessity. After a while the implications of fraud become too great when large amounts of money are raised and spent. Over time the co-opted fundraisers become increasingly reluctant to conduct the due diligence required to verify results and are more likely to overlook any anomalies that may call them into question. In the end, they themselves become part of the deception.

In a contemporary case, a US based denominational mission began a partnership with a ministry in South Asia that was reporting fantastic results. They sent a research team over to document the work and gathered tens of thousands of names of supposed believers from multiple villages. Though it was all a con, the “missionaries” had no clue for years. Like mice racing through a museum, they saw everything and understood nothing. This con would have likely continued for many more years were it not for one of the lieutenants of the scheme confessing to it all. He felt he had not been properly compensated for his work and so he spilled the beans. When he was interviewed later about how the con worked, he explained that it was his job to organize meetings for the researchers and missionaries of pseudo-believers. He would coach the hired participants on what to say and how to respond, even to say hallelujah and amen in unison. Yet none of these people were actually followers of Christ.

Could this con have been avoided? Very likely. This wasn’t the first time it was done, and it wouldn’t be the last. After this “ministry leader” conned this denominational mission board, he went on to do the same to others. He was able to do this because American and Western missionaries very seldom conduct due diligence when selecting national partners. Increasingly these “missionaries” (sometimes called “strategy coordinators”) are not even
fluent in the local languages, and have a minimal understanding of the culture. They come in like power brokers and deal makers. They are the “trainers” and knowledge “experts.” This unfortunate cocktail of ignorance and arrogance makes them easy prey in patron-client cultures where the “expertise” is really on the side of the clients. Yet even for such cowboy apostles, the fraud perpetuated against them is usually avoidable. When mission fraud happens it is rarely the first time for the actors involved. In almost every case, these Western patrons of goodwill are averse to asking around. They want to trust, they want to believe, they are eager to be a part. To put it bluntly, we are often willing suckers.

As Western missions begin to transition into a new era that missiologist Tom Steffen calls the “facilitator era,” these types of problems are becoming increasingly common. In the “facilitator era,” Western missionaries and organizations work principally with national partners to achieve their common aims. On the one hand, this new era makes a lot of sense. National missionaries are doing the majority of the pioneering, frontier mission work today. They have an abundance of manpower, and we have the greatest disposable wealth in human history.

American foreign mission expenditures are now over 10 billion dollars a year. As a tacit validation of Tom Steffen’s paradigm, today the vast majority of this money ends up in the hands of national partners.

While enormous good has resulted from these relationships, the effects of corrupted partnerships are especially amplified in frontier mission contexts. When fraud occurs in a well-established field it can be more readily absorbed. But in frontier, pioneering contexts it can be devastating beyond repair due to the fragility of the emerging church. One of the tragic long-term repercussions are its effects on the gospel itself and the reputation of the Christian faith. If non-believers get the impression that Christianity in their culture is a Western financed invasion and its local actors are mere mercenaries seeking to profit from it, the reputation of true followers of Christ may all be called into question for many years to come.

To avoid such catastrophes there are seven rules every Western partner should consider adopting before entering into long-term partnerships with national believers, especially in frontier mission contexts:

1.  Check your agenda at the airport.

The biggest source of problems in partnerships with local believers is when we come in with our programs and brilliant solutions. The best and most productive vision is always the indigenous one. Avoid the posture of being the “expert” and come as a servant.

2. Remember it’s about relationship.

Good partnerships take time, so go slow. Yes, we want to hurry up and evangelize the world— it is our natural tendency. But when we get out of step with the Holy Spirit we get into trouble. Start simple, and try to keep it that way. Remember our God works in terms of centuries and millennia to accomplish his purposes.

3. Don’t exceed capacity and sustainability.

Has the ministry ever done before what you are now doing together? Is there a proven track record of faithfulness and fruitfulness? Most importantly, when the funds are gone will the work continue? Effective outside funding should increase capacity to grow without compromising the ability to sustain the work long term.

4. Ensure there is both internal and external accountability.

Make sure you know how funds are handled. Most problems can be avoided right here. How are decisions made within the ministry? Are the ministry leader’s personal funds co-mingled with project funds? If there is a building project, who owns the land? If there is a business, who owns the assets? Ask all the common-sense questions you can think of. Most importantly make sure that the ministry leader is accountable to other leaders that are not under his or her control, and make sure there are internal controls for good accounting and fund management.

5. Ask around, but reserve judgment about a potential partner.

Ask other missionaries, ask other national believers, and talk to ex-staff if you can. Remember that just because you hear something that isn’t positive doesn’t mean it’s true. Sadly, in the competitive environment for foreign funding, it is all too common for false rumors to spread. Nonetheless, you should be aware of what others think in the local culture, while being open to reserving judgment.

6. Don’t tie results to funding.

The moment you give economic incentive for glowing reports, you have changed the nature of your relationship. In a patron-client culture, the job of the client is to keep the patron happy by whatever means necessary. This is the source of endless problems in corrupted partnerships. As a general mission rule, if it sounds too good to be true, it almost always is. Attrition and setbacks are a normal part of any mission endeavor. It’s a red flag if you never hear of any!

7. Listen to the Holy Spirit and don’t stop asking.

At the end of the day, no partnership should be engaged without significant prayer and discernment. This really should be the first and last rule! The more people you have praying over it and into it, the greater the safeguards you will have in any healthy partnership.
 

 

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

Movement Servants Needed!

24:14 Goal: Movement engagements in every unreached people and place by 2025 (56 months)

Movement Servants Needed!

What is the most strategic role you can imagine for a Jesus follower in the Western world who wants to see all peoples reached with the gospel as soon as possible?

Three hundred years ago, at the beginning of the modern Protestant missions movement,1 most missionaries were sent from Europe and the USA. Western cultural norms were also exported, resulting in a common image of missions portrayed as a white man standing before a group of seated “natives,” holding a Bible and preaching a sermon to explain the good news of salvation in Christ. The fruitful response envisioned was an altar call in which large numbers of people raised their hands or otherwise indicated they wanted to follow Jesus. This paradigm can still occasionally be found in fund-raising appeals. And whether consciously or subconsciously, this picture still informs the interest of some missionaries and missionary funders: “How many people have you personally led to the Lord this year?” But we need to recognize that the Great Commission does not require us acting as the “hero.”

Over the centuries, examples of a different pattern were seen in the co-laboring of Adoniram Judson and the Karen leader Ko Tha Byu, Hudson Taylor and Chinese evangelists such as Xi Shengmo, and the missionary efforts of non-Westerners such as Sadhu Sundar Singh.

Sadly, in past centuries some opposed the empowerment and leadership of local missionaries and leaders. However, in recent decades, more and more missionaries have come to accept this pattern. They have understood that the most fruitful ministry among the unreached is usually done, not by a distant-culture (Western) worker trying to directly reach the unreached, but through partnership between near-culture Christians and distant- culture (Western) workers.

In E-Scale terminology, “E1 is reaching one’s own culture across the barrier of ‘church culture.’ E2 is cross- cultural evangelism into a similar, but different culture. E3 evangelism is taking the gospel to cultures very different from that of the messenger.”2 The most effective evangelism generally happens through messengers culturally closer to the culture of those hearing the message. Thus distant-culture workers maximize their effectiveness by partnership with believers culturally closer to those they hope to reach with the gospel.

In most cases, the greatest number of people come to faith through the ministry of same-culture or near-culture workers. When E3 messengers in such partnerships report accurately on ministry fruit, they portray clearly that they play a role in the ministry, but it is their local partners who actually lead the most people to saving faith.

Especially in our day, colonial history has made a Western passport and identity often a liability rather than an asset in direct evangelism to the unreached. The vast majority of the world’s UPGs (Unreached People Groups) have some negative history with Western imperialism and the connection of colonial oppression with Christian missions. Thus, whenever the gospel arrives as a “white man’s religion,” with a face reflecting the colonial face of Christendom, it meets immediate barriers of perception and cultural preservation. This dynamic strongly reinforces the importance of strategic approaches in which the face seen bringing good news to most UPGs matches the majority face of Jesus’ followers in our day. Most of Jesus’ followers in our time (since about 19803 and increasingly so) are non-Western: majority Christians from the Majority World.

In recent decades, a new kingdom dynamic has burst on the scene of missiological awareness. Often described as “Church Planting Movements,” “Disciple Making Movements,” or “Kingdom Movements,” these rapidly reproducing movements feature disciples making disciples and churches planting churches in multiple streams to four or more generations. While confirming the high value of E2-E3 partnership, these movements have also opened highly valuable potential E3 roles that most missionaries and mission agencies have not yet realized.

As researchers have studied the amazing work of God in 1,371 movements (as of this writing), bringing over 79 million people into God’s kingdom in this generation,  they have discovered something surprising. Not only are movements the way God’s kingdom is growing fastest in our day, they are also the source from which most new movements are springing up.

Only 10 to 20 percent of existing movements were started by an outside catalyst(s) finding an inside catalyst(s) and planting the first churches. The vast majority of current movements—between 80 and 90 percent of them4— were started by believers from other (near-culture) movements. The metaphor of “hot coals” has often been used to envision taking embers from an existing fire to start a fire in a new location (rather than trying to start a fire from nothing). For example, the Bhojpuri movement in Northern India5 has started movements in at least eight other large language groups. Another family of movements in Southeast Asia has started work in over 50 UPGs and 17 countries.

This surprising reality has major implications for every person eager to see more movements begun, in fact for everyone who desires to see the gospel reach all peoples as quickly as possible. Those wanting to catalyze movements have often aimed to focus not on “What can I do?” but rather on “What needs to be done?” This motto demands a fresh application as we consider the newly discovered information about how most movements are now starting. What “needs to be done” that can be accomplished by distant-culture workers?

Actually, a great many things need to be done, but they vary from one movement to another, and sometimes from one year to another within any given movement. Distant-culture workers can play a vital role in strengthening and deepening a movement, and/or in assisting a movement to expand and catalyze fresh movements among other UPGs. The key lies in willingness to serve the actual needs being felt and expressed by the leaders of the movements. They don’t need outsiders showing up with their own plans and ideas. They want people humble enough and flexible enough to do whatever needs to be done.

In some cases, this might involve a specialized skill, but more often it involves applying a basic-level skill in an area of need.
Possibilities include:

  • Communication efforts
  • Job and business start-up training Computer and technical support
  • Video recording and/or editing Audio recording and/or editing
  • Fundraising in ways that do not create dependency
  • Social media help with creation and/or distribution
  • Prayer & mobilizing prayer from outside the movement International networking
  • Hosting vision trips for potential outside partners Administration help
  • Hosting and supervising outside interns
  • Disaster response service and/or training and/or connections
  • Medical service and equipping medical response within the movement
  • Assisting with support, networking, or whatever else might be needed to help bring the gospel where it has never been
  • Anything and everything that is needed

In many cases, the movements cannot give a specific job description, as their needs keep changing. Or they may start with a specific need and job description, but circumstances change the needs. They want people who are willing to do whatever is needed.

The ministry might not sound glamorous or important at first glance. And some candidates have expressed concern about the difficulty of raising funds for this type of support role. However, we need to examine our assumptions. Do we assume that a new worker from the West has the experience or ability that warrants asking for an “important” role? Do we think it somehow diminishes us to serve in a support role for those better suited for the frontlines? Does it not make sense to learn about multiplication from people who have been a part of multiplying hundreds and often thousands of disciples and churches?

One movement leader, discussing this movement servant role, said, “Westerners we talk to do not really want to do what we need. For instance, we would ask them not to go live in Afghanistan but seek to reach Afghans in Europe and partner to raise prayer and funds and key outside connections for Afghan believers in Afghanistan. That has not been appealing to anybody we have talked to. They all want to go live in the country and be the frontline workers.”

Another movement leader said, “I have a hard time believing that Westerners would come in and submit to our leadership over the long term. In a few cases we have tried something like this; after a couple of years, they decide they know how to do it better than we do and they break away and use the appeal of excessive funding to take some of our leaders with them to work for them.”

For this reason we use the term Movement Servant. What movements most need are servant-hearted people. Some have encouraged us to use a “more appealing term” that would be easier to “sell to their supporters.” As if following Jesus’ example of not coming to “be served but to serve” is not appealing.
A Movement Servant will come alongside movement leaders to help expand the movement(s), assisting with a very wide range of ministry activities, depending on the ministry needs and the instructions of the movement leader(s). This will help increase the capacity of the movement to go further and faster, to become even more effective in advancing the movement(s) in which they are involved.

Consider, for example, the kingdom impact of working with a movement of 8,000 churches that has minimal computerization. They need help setting up a computer system for tracking church health and distribution, which will also help them know which peoples and places are still untouched by the gospel. This assistance brings the potential to reach tens of thousands more people and plant thousands more churches within a few years.

We can share a few examples of people serving movements. For one large family of movements, some translation experts currently supply help from the outside for movements translating Scripture. These movements are in areas that an outsider cannot enter due to political or religious realities, but the service of technical and translation experts has been invaluable to help those in that area do a church-based, computer aided, expert assisted translation process. These professional translators have had to allow God to change their paradigm from personally doing the translation to helping “amateurs” in the movement learn the skills and group processes that will produce an excellent translation.

In another movement with over 300,000 believers in a very large geographical area, some Westerners (who are not professionals) are helping with video editing. They work with movement leaders to produce short leadership training videos that can be shared from phone to phone.

A third example comes from a “kingdom business” project where outsiders help movements identify near-culture gaps needing movements. They assist with business training, prayer and fundraising (only supplementing funds raised within the movements) as movement families relocate and re-start businesses to sustain them long-term in reaching the new group. This has already resulted in reaching many new population segments.

As the apostle Peter described the glorious gospel revealed in Christ, he exclaimed: “Even angels long to look into these things.” (1 Pet.1:12b) In recent decades, some gospel messengers and missiologists have felt echoes of that longing to look, when hearing reports of amazing things happening in Church Planting Movements. They’ve wished or asked to go visit a movement and see for themselves the amazing miracles and conversions being reported. But they’ve been told that for security reasons, it wouldn’t be wise for a person like them to show up in the midst of an indigenous movement among an UPG. Some indigenous movements do not want any Westerners visiting their movements (often related to the post-colonial reasons already mentioned). Other movements welcome a few trusted visitors, to interact with a limited portion of the ministry in certain locations.

Those welcomed in, count it a high privilege to see first-hand the Lord’s work in the movements they observe. The door to that privilege is now open for those willing to come as a servant, to do whatever a movement needs for its strengthening and expansion. Few people get this privilege: the opportunity to learn movement dynamics firsthand by serving in the midst of an actual movement. Movement dynamics are “better caught than taught.” This invitation welcomes servants. Way beyond reading a book or attending a training, a Movement Servant will gain experience in making disciples and learning from real-life multiplication.

What kind of people can fulfill the Movement Servant role? The essential qualifications, skills and experience include:
• Follower of Jesus
• Trying to be a disciple-maker6
• Advocate of CPM principles7
• Good people skills
• Willing to submit to non-Western leadership
• Willing to learn local trade language (at an appropriate level)
• Willing to learn and be sensitive to a new local culture(s)
• Faithful to keep commitments and a person of honor and integrity
• Willing to do whatever they can to serve the expansion of God’s kingdom

This role is not for people looking to emulate the ministry of the Apostle Paul. This is for those willing to serve more like Barnabas, or even Epaphras. (Col. 1:7; 4:12)

Jesus said, “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.” (Matt. 20:26) What if the most effective thing you could do truly looked like being a servant? What if your best way to maximally reach the unreached involved an assortment of jobs, chosen and assigned by someone from another culture? Would you be willing to lay down your life and some of your preferences in order to play a role in rapid kingdom multiplication among the unreached? The movements are already moving, and you’re invited to play a part in increasing their growth. You might be called to go try to start a new movement(s). If so, the best way to do that could be to go learn from an existing movement. You may have thought starting from nothing was your best option in serving among the unreached. But now you can think and pray about hopping on board to increase multiplication where the action has already begun.

If you’re interested, please contact us via the form at bit.ly/MServant. We already have relationships with networks of movements – in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. We cannot guarantee connection, because even if you are willing, we will need to find a movement that is ready and able to receive you. And there will likely be some challenging dynamics no matter how willing you are.

But we will do everything we can to help you find a group who is looking for Movement Servants. We would love to facilitate the connection and help you find the right slot for someone with your gifting. Take a moment to thank God for what he is doing through movements in our day. Thank him for the spontaneous multiplication of movements planting other movements among the unreached. Then ask him what role he might want you to play. May the Lord guide you and use you for His glory, to the ends of the earth.

Endnotes
  1. The Moravian church renewal in 1727 and resulting 100+ year prayer campaign and sending out of missionaries starting in 1732 laid the groundwork for William Carey, the Wesley family, and others who continued the modern missionary momentum.

  2. Ralph Winter & Bruce Koch, “Finishing the Task: the Unreached Peoples Challenge,” in Perspectives on the World Christian Move- ment:
    A Reader, fourth edition, p. 532

  3. According to World Christian Encyclopedia, 3rd edition, page 6.

  4. This question was asked of movement leaders representing over 1,000 movements. They all gave answers in the range of 80-90%.

  5. See “Movements Multiplying Movements: How the Bhojpuri CPM has Started Other Movements”: pages 185-188 in 24:14—A Testimony to All Peoples.

  6. It is not required that this person have multiplication fruit, but they do need to be a faithful disciple and witness to lost people, seeking to make disciples. If they come from a traditional paradigm of building-based discipleship programs, we encourage them to get some basic training and practice in Church Planting Movements (CPM) in their home culture before they go to serve a movement.

  7. A CPM is the result of God’s work. God has used a variety of ap- proaches to start CPMs, including DMM, T4T, Four Fields, etc. See http://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue/article/2414-goal for Core Principles and Common Outcomes of a CPM approach.

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

A Support Structure for Staying the Course

A Support Structure for Staying the Course

In the book, Celtic Daily Prayer: Farther Up and Farther In, the authors who are part of Northumbria Community share about the very human side of monastic life in the following manner:

Monastic diseases are coping mechanisms—attitudes and actions that can bring dis-ease to ourselves and others around us. All of us have the potential to catch any and all of these diseases—the main problem lies in denial or wrong diagnosis, or no diagnosis at all, i.e. being unaware of them.1

Let us use this thinking as a window to peek in at our own attitudes and actions that create the diseases of unhealthy dependency. Missional diseases are coping mechanisms—attitudes and actions that can bring disease manifested as unhealthy codependency to ourselves and others around us. All of us have the potential to catch any and all of these diseases—the main problem lies in denial, wrong diagnosis or no diagnosis at all.

There is so much that tempts us to ignore our convictions, wise advice from others and lessons from past experiences when it comes to unhealthy dependency. My husband and I faced a barrage of temptations when we served as missionaries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Denial, wrong diagnosis, or no diagnosis at all play out in different ways:

  • Seeing someone struggle pulls on our heartstrings, and we quickly decide that short-term gain is better than the long-term pain that might show up because of our hasty solutions. We go with our impulse and ignore the warning signs.
  • We know better, but sometimes we compromise because of expectations from our donors, churches and sending agencies. They want to know what we are achieving or what they can achieve vicariously through us.
  • Helping and directing others has a way of making us feel needed and feeding our sense of self-importance. Our self-identity, which easily gets entangled in our projects and work, is hard to let go of when making decisions and plans to move into the shadows in order to allow the local people to shine. It requires heaps of humility and surrender, which is sometimes hard for missionaries who are highly driven and motivated to begin with.
  • We want to make something easier and better for us—less wear and tear on our bodies, faster results and fulfilling to our own dreams—so we settle for non-reproducible methods.
  • Everyone around us seems to give little thought to the causes and consequences of unhealthy dependency, so why bother to swim against the stream?
  • If we don’t offer fringe benefits, local people will simply go to other organizations. We can’t keep people if we don’t act as patrons.
  • We try to solve unhealthy dependency by substituting a problem with another problem because we aren’t thinking of solutions outside the dependency mindset. In this case, our solution lands us right back in the same place.

Many people know by personal experience that it is hard to stay the course once we have made up our minds to not be the instigators of creating unhealthy dependency. There is way more shouting at us to go ahead and ignore the crippling effects of unhealthy dependency than there is to be wise and aware. It takes intention, prayer, patience, evaluation and wisdom to recognize our blind spots, stick with our convictions, swim against the stream, close the gap between theory and practice and not substitute a problem for a problem.

With these challenges in mind, I strongly suggest that you form a support group around you made up of people who are committed to avoid perpetuating a culture of unhealthy dependency. In this way, you can hold each other accountable and learn from one another.

Five Stones Global has created a relational and instructive support structure for this very purpose. If you are interested, we will guide you or your team as you:

  1. work through a sequence of two-page worksheets that build upon each other on the topic “Avoid Creating a Culture of Unhealthy Dependency.
  2. process the worksheets with a coach or peer group.
  3. create a paradigm statement, guiding principles and practices.

 

This process will not only save you a lot of heartache, it will equip you to be a catalyst for creating a culture of dignity, sustainability and multiplication in place of unhealthy dependency.

If you are interested in receiving interactive instruction and coaching to “Avoid Creating a Culture of Dependency,” please visit the Five Stones Global website at http://www.fivestonesglobal.org for more information or email Maria Gilbertson at [email protected].

In the meantime, may God help us all to transition from denial, wrong diagnosis, and no diagnosis at all to recognition, right diagnosis and taking responsibility. We can do this, if we help one another.

Endnotes
  1. Celtic Daily Prayer: Book 2 (The Northumbria Community Trust, 2015), 1148.

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

Could Inspiring More “We Did It” Stories Help Break the Dependency Mindset?

Could Inspiring More “We Did It” Stories Help Break the Dependency Mindset?

During my years in Haiti I was involved in numerous construction projects. On one occasion, I arrived a few days in advance of a larger team to finalize the foundation for a church school which was being 100% financed with US dollars.

Although the local church had participated in the demolition of the old earthquake damaged building, they had yet to contribute even a small amount of money. Thinking I would further inspire local participation, I suggested the pastor take an offering from the church to help offset some of the costs of serving lunch to the workers.

Although an offering was taken, no one from the church congregation gave any money.

When I asked the pastor, “Why?” I was told, “It’s because the people see you are an American missionary. They know you always have enough money to pay for everything. Therefore, they don’t give.” Besides feeling hurt and disappointed, I remember asking myself, “What would this congregation have done if we Americans had never contributed to their school?”

Recently, a Haitian friend of mine helped answer my hypothetical question while we were co-conducting a symposium in Haiti centered around the theme, “What is the current state of the Haitian National Church?” Valery Vital-Herne, a three-generation pastor and the Country Director for Micah Challenge said: “The Haitian Church is a dependent church and a church full of initiative.” How can a church be dependent and at the same time full of initiative? The Haitian Church is a poor church and a rich church at the same time.

We’ve been receiving missionaries for years—missionaries investing in education, investing in orphanages, investing in building churches, investing in everything. The result in part is having dependent churches, dependent church leaders who say, “To build the next school we need to have a blan (foreigner). We need someone from the United States.”

But at the same time, when those churches receive a “No!” from a blan, or have struggled to find a white missionary, guess what? Years later you find a big building. And those pastors will tell you proudly, “We did it! We searched for international help. We didn’t find it. So, we told the church, ‘We serve a big God. Let’s put our hands together and let’s build that.’”

They feel a sense of pride and a sense of ownership. That’s why I said the Haitian church is a dependent church. That dependency mindset is still there. When they don’t find foreign funds, they work together and start schools and start churches. Some of the big buildings you see downtown or in Delmas are debt free, paid for only by Haitians.1

Why is being able to say, “We did it,” really important? As Valery shared about Haitian churches saying, “We did it” and “the sense of pride and sense of ownership” that pastors and their congregations experience through trusting in a big God, I was reminded of a couple of important principles.

The first is local dependence on God. In Revelation chapters 2 and 3, we learn that the Lord is watching each local church to see how well it utilizes the gifts and resources he has entrusted to it directly. Zambian missionary Dwight Kopp says, “If this were not so, Jesus would not have written seven separate letters to the churches in Revelation. Instead, one letter could have been sufficient—blaming them all for the sin in the church of Sardis.”2

Secondly, he multiplies “few” resources into “many” resources based on faithfulness (Matt. 25:21) and according to the power of the Holy Spirit at work within a community of believers. (Eph. 3:20)

With these in mind, could it be that when we as Westerners give towards church building projects in a foreign land, that along with creating dependency on us, we are actually hindering that local congregation’s intimate trusting relationship with God? How often do we unintentionally bypass God’s process of maturing faith and steal the real blessings of “satisfaction” and “sense of ownership” God wants to instill in every local church? Instead of writing more checks to building projects, I’d like to suggest we look for ways to inspire more “We did it!” stories.

With these in mind, could it be that when we as Westerners give towards church building projects in a foreign land, that along with creating dependency on us, we are actually hindering that local congregation’s intimate trusting relationship with God?

Endnotes
  1. Vital-Herne, Valery, 2013, audio transcription from presentation, “Ten Characteristics of the Haitian National Church”, http:// http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqd7WhJS7lI

  2. Awake Africa!!!”, Dwight Kopp, Feb 19, 2006. Copyright (c) 2005 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS)

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

Five Times, Ninety Days and One Generation

Five Times, Ninety Days and One Generation

Five Times

While visiting churches in an outlying part of another country, Mike and Rebecca’s charitable instincts kicked in. “We must find a way to help these churches,” they declared. Before they returned to the USA, they decided to give $100 to each of the three churches in the area to use for their most pressing need. Mike and Rebecca interpreted the recipients’ enthusiastic appreciation as an indication that the money was of great help. They made sure the churches knew that they were keen to partner with them.

While at home, Mike and Rebecca collected some children’s Sunday school materials from years past from various churches in their city and sent them to the three churches with whom they had formed a partnership.

Six months later, Mike and Rebecca arranged for another trip to visit the churches that had so captured their hearts. This time a small team of construction workers joined Mike and Rebecca. They used their time there to renovate the aging church buildings.

The churches’ anticipation grew every time they heard Mike and Rebecca were coming for another visit. An unspoken question often fluttered in the local believers’ minds: What might they help us with this time?

Two weeks before Mike and Rebecca’s next visit, one of the churches emailed them with a heart of expectation. The email contained the following request: “Would you be willing to bring us a guitar, one like Mike plays when he is here? Also, we were thinking that we need to build a place for the pastor to live on the church property. This would make our pastoral work more effective for Jesus and you could stay there when you come.” Mike and Rebecca assisted with this seemingly reasonable request.

Upon Mike and Rebecca’s next visit, a man who attended one of the local churches asked Mike for money to send his kids to school. The man was visibly disappointed when Mike told him that he had to think about it. This was the first time Mike wondered if they may have started something they hadn’t intended through their well-intentioned giving. The appreciation they had initially experienced had seemed to transition into entitlement. For the time being, Mike dismissed the nagging thought.

The more Mike and Rebecca helped the people there, the more complicated the relationships became. After two years of helping these three churches, Mike and Rebecca realized they may have established dependency.

This hypothetical but very realistic story reveals that it takes no more than five times of one-way foreign subsidy to establish unhealthy dependency.1

Ninety Days

This is bad news if the habit is unhealthy and good news if the habit is healthy. For example, if you chronically underwrite 90 days’ worth of ministry efforts on behalf of a church in another country, it will become a permanent lifestyle habit for that church to look outside of their congregation for resources to operate their God-given ministries. On the other hand, if you encourage that same church to mobilize local resources for 90 days’ worth of their own ministries, it will become a permanent lifestyle habit for that church to mobilize their own resources for their own ministry efforts. It is up to us to make the 21/90 rule to work for the good of creating a culture of dignity, sustainability, multiplication, and movements, rather than against it.

One Generation

Saranya Kapur wrote an online article for Business Insider called “Parents on Welfare Are Bequeathing a Culture of Welfare unto Their Children.”In this article, Kapur writes about a study provided by the United States-based National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). The NBER study reveals that parents who are on welfare create a culture of welfare for their children. Kapur goes on to explain that there are three main reasons why this happens:

  1. Parents on welfare constantly provide information to their growing children about all the assistance programs available.
  2. The parents reduce the stigma of participation in these subsidy programs.
  3. The parents don’t invest in the self-development of their own family.]

Ultimately, the research shows that most often parents being on welfare is the main cause of their children being on welfare, rather than some other correlated legitimate factor.

In the same way, the first generation of churches being dependent on outside support is the main cause of the next generation of churches being dependent on outside support, rather than some other correlated legitimate factor. In other words, churches who are raised in an ecclesiastical culture of welfare are bequeathing an ecclesiastical culture of welfare to the next generation of churches:

It takes five times of one-way giving to create dependency. It takes 90 days to develop permanent lifestyle habits that go along with depending on others. It takes only one generation of families and churches steeped in an ecclesiastical welfare culture to bequeath it to the next generation of families and churches.

That’s dismaying information. Here’s the beauty from ashes. Any one of these rules can work in our favor for positive outcomes.

What would happen if you facilitated a group of disciples to give and share local resources for a cause dear to their hearts five times, or 90 days, or for the first generation of disciples? You would establish local-local interdependence, create a permanent lifestyle habit and bequeath the next generation of disciples with the desire and capacity to give and share their resources.

What’s fascinating about this is that we have to start with ourselves. If we choose to make it our aim and practice to use local resources to create what we need for 90 days, this will become our permanent missional habit. Beyond developing a healthy missional practice for us, we end up inspiring and modeling reproducibility and spontaneous multiplication to others in our realm of influence. In other words, reproducibility will become our value and our habit and others will catch on.

It only takes five times of unwise giving and free services to create dependency. It sneaks up on us really fast. But, if we determine to use the 21/90 principle in a positive sense, we can bequeath dignity, self- sustainability, faith, ingenuity, determination and so much more to generations of multiplying disciples and churches. May it be so!
 

Endnotes
  1.  Robert Lupton, Toxic Charity (New York, NY: Harper One 2011), 130.

  2. Saranya Kapur, “Parents on Welfare Are Bequeathing a Culture of Welfare unto Their Children,” Business Insider. http://www.businessin- sider.com/children-of-parents-on-welfare-are-more-likely-to-be-on-welfare-2013–11.

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

Becoming a Person of Dogged Determination

Becoming a Person of Dogged Determination

She refused to give up. Pressing on through pain, weariness, discouragement, not to mention her sense of unworthiness, she pressed on. When her first groups started well, but soon fell apart, she didn’t quit. Oh, she felt like it alright. The burning passion to reach the lost of her city compelled her to keep trying. Again, she began new groups. She cast vision to her pastor, to new friends, and they continued taking unsteady but determined steps forward. Then, almost unexpectedly, they hit the tipping point. Things began to grow rapidly. Within a year, 52 groups were started. They were beginning to multiply. She was a woman of dogged determination and great faith. The kind of faith that refused to give up.

Movement leaders and catalysts are people of great tenacity. They have a dogged determination and focus to bring lost people home to Jesus. It’s a dream they absolutely refuse to let go of.

Releasing a Disciple Making Movement that multiplies rapidly and sweeps through a region of unreached people does not happen without resistance. The enemy will fight against you. Your inner life will be tested. You will have apparent breakthroughs that then dissolve. People who seem to be Persons of Peace fall into sin, distraction or struggle with a sickness that takes them out of CPM/DMM work.

Initial Excitement Must Be Tempered By Movement Backstories

When we first hear about movements, they excite us! We hear stories of what God is doing in other places and our faith rises to believe it could happen in our location too. This is something God Himself has done in our hearts. Faith is a gift from Him.

Our job is to hold on to that faith, to be steadfast. We must steward, guard, and feed it. This is especially true when we don’t see immediate results. And most people don’t.

Those who have seen movements launch tell backstories of tenacity and perseverance. They have many stories of failed attempts and obstacles overcome. Yet they kept going. They refused to give up, they fought forward on their knees, and God brought the breakthrough.

Will You Hold On, Until the Release Comes?

I spoke with a couple who worked many years in a large metropolis. They staked their claim in a very diverse area with thousands of unreached peoples. When they first drove down the main street, they knew God was speaking to them about living there.

IIn obedience, they moved into the city and bought a house so they could live among the least reached peoples, those who had immigrated to their country for a host of reasons.

“After years of effort, we’ve built many good relationships. But we still haven’t cracked it. Nobody has. Whether we see it in our lifetime or not, one day we know there will be a movement here.” Their faithfulness was evident. They were not going anywhere. No plan B had emerged. The reason we were talking was that they were exploring new options to move forward.

This is the kind of couple I am thrilled to encourage and come alongside. They haven’t given up. They need some new strategies and ways to take things forward. That is what a good coach helps with! God has a plan.

He has prepared Persons of Peace in their city, those who wait to receive His message of good news. Their prayers and efforts are not in vain. But what will it take to see a movement of disciples making disciples in their area?

It will take a move of God.

Disciple Making Movements are supernatural interventions of an Almighty God. They cannot be humanly engineered. They do not happen because we “do everything right” or follow the correct formula. Having said this, one thing is always true of movements, they don’t happen without doggedly determined people who persevere.

God delights in using ordinary people to do extraordinary things. He forms and shapes these ordinary people, as they follow Him down the path of unshakeable obedience.

What is “Dogged Determination” Anyhow?

Another word that can be used for this is tenacity. Tenacity is the quality of being “very determined.”

The word determination itself means to refuse to give up, once you have committed to something. Collins defines dogged as meaning someone is “determined to continue with something even if it becomes difficult or dangerous.”

When it comes to seeing a movement, are you tenacious? Do you have a dogged determination to see this come to pass?

It must be emphasized here that I’m not talking about striving in the flesh. This kind of tenacity comes from deep inside of you.

I can not have this level of determination unless I know that what I am pursuing is absolutely God’s will. Knowing without a shadow of a doubt that God desires to do what I am going after, gives me the strength to continue. It releases courage to press through obstacles, fear, persecution, and even boredom when my efforts feel unfruitful.

Are DMM and CPMs God’s will?

Is a movement of disciples rapidly making disciples, lives being transformed, communities and society changing as the kingdom of God comes, His desire for your region or people? Did the vision to see a Disciple Making Movement come from Him?

Is it in line with His Word as you understand it?

If you answered yes to these questions, you are pursuing something that is beyond doubt the will of God. Let that powerful reality place within you a fresh determination to continue pursuing that dream.

Seven Things To Do When Visible Results Are Disappointing

1. Revisit your End Vision.

Go back to what God originally placed in your heart when you first heard about movements, when you prayed and istened to His voice. Revisit that sense of excitement and calling. Has it changed? Reflect on the things He spoke and what you felt He was saying at that time. In the Old Testament, God often told the Israelites to set up memorial stones. They were places of remembrance. When His people got discouraged, they would see those memorials and remember who God is and what He had done. Take time to remember.

You may need to adjust your End Vision. That is okay to do. Ask God again what He is saying. Just make sure your vision doesn’t shrink based on what you experience and see.

Stay focused on what you know, deep within your heart, God wants to do in your region, city, or people group.

2. Evaluate.

Dogged determination without a willingness to honestly evaluate results is simply donkey-like stubbornness. It is not wisdom. We must be able to evaluate our approaches and invite others to also give us input. Are there things you have done for years, that are not producing fruit? Maybe you need to stop doing some activities, to make room for new approaches. This requires a certain level of humility and vulnerability.

Is that community development center or medical outreach resulting in new disciples who make disciples?

Does your business platform take up all your time and leave little energy to reach out to neighbors? Are you building lots of relationships but timid when it comes to having spiritual conversations? There are many things to evaluate in light of fruit.

3. Talk to a coach.

Very often I’ve found that talking things through with a knowledgeable DMM/CPM coach brings clarity.

Good coaches ask you questions.

They don’t tell you what to do, but as you talk and process, understanding comes. The Holy Spirit guides you and you can start moving forward. A coach can also help you to diagnose your movement and can suggest you find out more about an approach that is helping in another DMM/CPM team in a similar context.

See the free guide to Simple DMM coaching available on my blog Dmmsfrontiermissions.com for more input on this.

4. Take small steps of faithfulness and be accountable.

Whether you find a coach, or a friend, spouse or team member, start with some small, achievable action steps. If you find you haven’t been seeing multiplication with all 10 house churches, choose one leader to coach and work with on this issue over the next month. Meet and pray often with them and see if you can’t get at least one group to experiment with some changes that will lead to them starting their groups.

As a DMM practitioner, you likely lead many others. Who are you accountable to for your personal disciple- making? Be faithful, start small, and get the momentum going again.

5. Innovate.

Similar to evaluation, when we aren’t seeing fruit, we need to innovate.

The coronavirus has forced innovations in disciple-making. Many of us are now training and making disciples online in new ways. We’ve begun to learn how to reach out through social media and advertising to find Persons of Peace. For more on this go to https://kingdom.training and make use of their excellent resources.

In some locations, it seems people have a default strategy for finding new connections. It might be coffee shops or English corners, Alpha, or medical outreaches. If your default strategy is producing disciples who make disciples, by all means, keep doing it! If not, maybe it’s time to get creative and think outside the box.

Instead of asking the question, “what could we do?” ask “what could we try?”

6. Actively participate in a committed community of DMM/CPM practitioners.

Communities of DMM/CPM practitioners are emerging all over the world. If you are not in one yet, find one. If there isn’t yet a group in your area, start one. There is great encouragement when we meet together with like-minded people. Iron sharpens iron. We need people who ask us hard questions, hold us accountable, and pray for us when we hit a wall. Find out more about practitioner’s communities on my blog (Dmmsfrontiermissions.com) or the 24:14 or noplaceleft.net websites.

7. Increase extraordinary prayer.

Last, but certainly not least, the first thing to evaluate if you are not seeing the results you hope for is prayer. Especially as Westerners, we tend to do many activities, but fail to pray in extraordinary ways. What could you do to increase prayer for your region, city, or people group?

Many Disciple Making Movements have a parallel prayer movement that grows along with the DMM/CPM. These committed intercessors are key to releasing what God is preparing to do to reach your area.

Ask God For Dogged Determination

Countless times in my DMM journey I have returned to Galatians 6:9 to find the strength to take the next step forward. “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” Would you join me in praying this verse of Scripture?

Father God, this road to releasing a DMM is longer than I expected. The rocks and barriers haven’t been easy to overcome. Sometimes I feel tired and wonder if I shouldn’t try to do something else. Give me the determination to not become weary in doing good disciple-making activities, even when I don’t see immediate fruit. I believe that harvest is coming, that you have promised it to those who refuse to give up. Fill me with a dogged determination that won’t let go of this vision until it comes to pass.

Strengthen me today to do your will. Amen.

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

Good Intentions Are Not Always Good Enough

Reprinted from Mission Frontiers September-October 2016 issue

Good Intentions Are Not Always Good Enough

The English intellect C.P. Snow asked the now-famous question, “Can we do ‘good’ when the foreseeable consequences are evil?” No, but what if the evil consequences are not easily “foreseeable?”

During and after the Korean war, American agencies raised money for Korean “orphans.” This was a major opportunity for Americans to support cute looking orphans for $20 a month. Genuine concern in the form of powerful maternal and paternal instincts also supported this kind of cause.

Those orphans were so well treated that many Korean families decided to “orphan” one or more of their own children in order to assure them of enough food and clothing and relieve the financial burden of another hungry mouth. In such cases, American money was not helping orphans so much as splitting families—not the donors’ intentions!

This was not immediately apparent. “Direct” help continued to seem reasonable. Years later, a superb improvement took place and “childcare”—not starving orphans—was now the cry, which helped the destitute family care for its own children. Later still, the larger concept of “relief and development” emerged whereby plans for helping the family earn a living began to replace simple relief.

That, in turn, gave way later to an even larger concept: “community development.” Rather than selecting certain families to help (and not others), the whole community was gently and sensitively led, where possible, to resolve problems, holding everyone back.

Sadly, not only did all of the earlier approaches have potentially negative side effects, by leaving those “direct” approaches behind they made it increasingly more difficult to raise funds in America. People began to realize that “we know we can’t help even our own poor in America that easily, and, in any case, why not help our own poor first?”

By contrast, and even better than the kind of community development which seeks an overly idealistic secular solution to solve the overall problem, Christian missionaries have often found a more basic solution: namely, that preaching repentance from a life of lying, stealing and addiction to nicotine and alcohol has often had dramatic economic effects. High in the mountains in Guatemala, the town of Almalonga was widely known for its high income from vegetable production and its pervasive alcoholism. All of its relatively high income was squandered on liquor. When faith in Jesus Christ took root, the whole town went dry, and almost overnight its economic status changed dramatically—an astonishing transformation.

Thus, what “good intentions” might see to be a “direct” answer may not do as well as the Christian faith, which can slowly work its way into a community, change lives one at a time and eventually make a major economic difference to the entire locale. But to many increasingly secularized donors, this just does not seem as “practical.”

In other cases, well-intentioned gifts from America have allowed some organizations to make rapid strides in evangelism by “buying” away the leaders of existing church movements with relatively high salaries. This also happens in the midst of a crisis of some sort like an earthquake, flood or famine, when outside agencies come in with huge resources of food or medicines and they urgently need some administrators they can trust. Christians are a good bet.

Key pastors are often pulled into these high-paying jobs.

But when the crisis is over, these key people cannot readily adjust or be accepted back where they were before.

Some newer missions even “buy” whole churches, promising a monthly subsidy if the existing church will put up the new sign over the door of the church. Donors may be pleased with such quick results.

In one area of India, 400 churches (out of 4,000) planted by a standard mission were offered financial “help” from a money-channeling agency. The pastors directly needed whatever help they could get. After a few years, these churches were no longer planting new congregations since the subsidy per church could not automatically stretch.
One short-lived US agency backed by a very good-hearted evangelical multimillionaire set out to generate low-cost audio cassettes by the hundreds of thousands to put the whole New Testament into the hands of village pastors in non- literate areas of the world. I cannot forget the sight of 6, quarter-of-a-million-dollar machines standing idle.
It was a “good idea,” but they soon found that in many rural villages of the world food is seen to be more necessary than Bible cassettes. One by one, Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. cassettes were sold on the open market for reuse in other ways. Why? Pastors chose not to starve their children when they could give up one cassette per week and provide significant relief. The same thing can happen when motorcycles or other expensive tools are provided from the West. The people know of more urgent uses of that money.
One US church took pity on a pastor from East Africa. Realizing that he did not have a car to get around his parish, they took up an offering for that purpose. They did not stop to think that in his economy he would be unable to buy gas for it. Nor did they realize the position it put him in relation to the other 600 pastors who had no car.
In many cases, whether we are concerned about the American inner city or a foreign situation, our basic intuition may be simplistic. In this country, the clearly good intentions of our welfare system have, in effect, made it profitable for millions of single women to have children out-of-wedlock or to urge their husbands to live elsewhere. Why wouldn’t similar misjudgments occur overseas?
The television show “60 Minutes” recently reported that 10,000 young women a month are drawn out of Eastern Europe into white slavery in Western countries. They interviewed enslaved women who “did not know what they were getting into.” They interviewed parents back home who thought their daughters were going away “to get a better job.” It was hard for “60 Minutes” to imagine what grinding poverty will do. Selling (in effect) daughters is widespread around the world, as is selling children in general.
Their parents are reluctantly aware that others can “get more out of” their children than they are willing to—longer hours, more difficult work, etc.
This is partly why southern Sudan has continued to be a quarry of human chattel, whether children or adults. The answer is not as simple as buying the human beings who are procured from this part of the world. In some ways, this simply increases the flow.
It may appear that war is what brings on these problems. It is at least as obvious that incredibly damaging diseases make life untenable in southern Sudan, killing and maiming far more people than either war or slavery. But to the donor who wants to see results and “direct” answers, buying enslaved children or adults seems a good enough answer to the problems.
No wonder that many donors retreat to supporting nothing but evangelism, since that does at least safely deal with a very basic aspect of the problem. Our current mission theology does not incline us to fight the very origins of disease. That seems too “indirect” to appeal to donors who “want results.”
In fact, some strains of evangelical theology could lead logically to an essential hopelessness about human problems that directs attention away from almost all practical steps. Satan is gleeful no doubt over the confusion he is able to create where even major, publicly understood problems exist.
Just take my relentless example of nicotine addiction in the United States. Everyone knows that this captures 3,000 more young people each day, dragging them down into a horrible death. Chemically in the same class as illegal drugs, this vicious drug has the protection of many decades of cultural approval as well as continuing federal subsidy. I am astounded how the general public can be lulled asleep by a few funny ads on TV that poke fun at the tobacco industry.
Why would problems overseas be less complex?
Many donors are content to get “the duty monkey” off their back. They don’t have time to care what happens to their gift. They’ve done their duty. Yet much of what is most needed in missions will not seem attractive to the donor at first glance. The most strategic works do not lend themselves to easy fundraising.

If the challenge of cross-cultural pioneer missions is inherently complex, that is not the fault of the missionary. We must almost expect that, for some, the real challenge of missions will be puzzling, baffling, infuriating and finally rejected. This is one reason so little is given to missions and so few actually give their lives over to this holy cause.
The reality is that nothing can be as safe and as strategic as using our funds to send out patient, resourceful, godly, loving, incorruptible people who stay on the field long enough to figure things out beyond first impressions and initial ideas and who work for an organization that has itself been out there long enough for insights to be passed on from one generation to the next. Ultimately, if we regularly support someone we know will be educated naturally and normally across the years as to the real situation, many problems with money can be avoided.

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

Unreached of the Day May-June 2021 (Formerly known as the Global Prayer Digest)

Unreached of the Day May-June 2021 (Formerly known as the Global Prayer Digest)

Click on the attached .pdf icon within this article to read the Unreached of the Day in this issue.

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

The Impact of Dependency on the Home Front

The Impact of Dependency on the Home Front

Everyone who desires to do good and/or share truth is a creator of dependency and is dependent themselves.This is especially true for Westerners, or those with more resources than those they are working among. It doesn’t matter if we raise personal support, start a company or work for an employer. The question we should be asking ourselves is: how aware are we of the kinds of dependency which we create and in which we live?

In everyone’s everyday world, to accomplish anything we depend on relationships, good will and truthfulness in communication and understanding. When those interactions are weak or are clouded by cross-cultural, language differences or prejudice, it is even easier to create more dependency and it is hard to see ourselves.

For those of us from the West, just “walking in the room” brings reactions and challenges to open and honest communication. If we bring resources—human (like you!) or financial—people treat us differently.

Position brings pressure of a similar sort. When I was General Director of the USCWM, I knew that opened doors of both opportunity and danger. Without even saying or doing anything, I put pressure on people to treat me a certain way—even if they didn’t want to.

You see this when you travel internationally. When I arrive in a non-Western country and need a taxi, they assume I want to pay for the best taxi, so they take me to the “official” taxi stand, when I’d be happy with using a cheaper Grab ride (which is like Uber in parts of Asia). Several years ago while in Hong Kong, several of us from the U.S. and Korea went to a traditional Chinese dim sum restaurant on a busy street. The first five or six floors were all one restaurant. When we arrived, they took us, via escalator, past the floors of packed tables, full of people who didn’t know each other—all stuffed tightly together. Every level brought fewer tables and people! Finally, on the top floor there was plenty of room. It was a bit of a relief from the intensity of the first floor, but the prices also increased at each level! They simply expected (forced?) us to pay more because of who we were.

These issues impact the typical office or business situation as well. Dependence on a paycheck may mean you don’t honestly tell those above you about problems you can see clearly. Good leaders have learned to work hard at being sure those around them are able to speak the truth about what is happening. We’ve all seen situations where the opposite was true and no one was willing to confront a short-sighted leader who was unaware of the real need(s).

That kind of leadership exports the “American hero” mentality. We come across as though “we have come to solve your problems” or even the world’s problems. I believe we know the spiritual solution. But we must guard ourselves, and those around us, from the “get-er-done” and “finish the task for Jesus” mentality—since it often morphs into triumphalism or colonialism.

These kinds of issues impact how we mobilize. In the early days of the USCWM, we were convinced that we needed to share encouraging stories about what God was doing around the world. The thinking was that people need to see progress in order to get a bunch of them to get involved.
What we didn’t think about that much was: how does my approach to mobilizing shape the work of those who go? What happens when the “just do it” or “get ‘er done” mentality hits the reality of a place like India, or in the contemplative world of Buddhism? I would guess that we have not thought deeply enough about the impact of our mobilization.

I heard a story from an older Norwegian missionary to Japan. He was gracious and said that he did not know a lot of missionaries that were the typical ugly-American stereotype, but he did meet a few who were “American salespeople.” Interesting phrase!

While Jesus has a “time frame” for the end of history and His return, He has chosen not to reveal that to us. While He is patient, “not wanting any to perish” He doesn’t seem to be in a hurry. I can’t explain that, but I’m trying to be in less of a hurry, yet still with purpose, passion and vision. Somehow, we need to express our heart for the lost—especially among the least reached, without linking it to what we can accomplish. Otherwise it becomes about us and takes away from the focus of the biblical story: Jesus.

Endnotes
  1. I’m not talking here about how we are all dependent on the Holy Spirit, or on brothers and sisters in the body of Christ.

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

Is There a Cure for Unhealthy Dependency?

Is There a Cure for Unhealthy Dependency?

One of the most difficult problems facing the Christian movement at the beginning of the 21st century is the dependency on outside funding that has developed in many mission-established churches. Church and mission leaders have several different reactions to this problem.

First, sometimes both mission leaders and church leaders are embarrassed about the dependency syndrome and would like to see the situation change. Not all of them fully understand what caused the problem or what to do about it, but they know that the situation is not healthy for the church or mission. Dependency among mission- established churches is not necessary; and where it exists, it can be eliminated.

Second, there are some who believe that dependent churches are a fact of life and nothing is likely to change that. hey rationalize that we are all dependent on someone; therefore, they don’t think there is anything wrong with Western Christians supporting non-Western churches the way they do. Some in this category are Westerners who feel guilty about their wealth and are actively looking for those with whom they can “partner” in the gospel. They feel that the concept of self-supporting churches doesn’t make much sense as long as some Christians are wealthier than others.

Third, there are some who are committed to planting new churches which are self-supporting from the very beginning. They know instinctively that the gospel can be shared and people can come into right relationship with God without developing an unhealthy dependence on outside funding. We now have many examples of how churches can be planted and grow without developing dependency.

Fourth, there is a group of older missionaries and church leaders who have lived for many years with the ideal of an indigenous, self-supporting church. They believed in the principle that mission-established churches should be self-supporting, self-governing and self-propagating. When the churches they planted did not develop that way, they resigned themselves to providing and continuing to provide outside support. Sometimes those missionaries are reluctant to see the outside support stopped because the projects they started might be closed down or fail to operate. Some missionaries may never live to see their work become self-supporting.

A fifth group includes local church leaders who were converted and discipled by missionaries and now receive their salary from outside support. They have concluded that their people are too poor to support their own churches and especially their own development projects so they might as well let the situation continue. Unfortunately, such churches are unlikely to learn the joy of sending out their own missionaries. Some of them feel they cannot support their own pastors, let alone help to plant new churches beyond their borders. Let’s not forget, there is a cure for this kind of dependency.

The sixth group is represented by newly planted churches where the people are actively seeking to attach themselves to individuals, churches or mission agencies willing to support them with foreign funds. This is the case in many parts of the former Soviet Union where western Christians are finding small groups of believers and adopting them as their “partners in the gospel.” In some cases, the outsiders visit for as little as two weeks and leave behind a church which they have “planted.” That church may have a pastor dependent on salary from the outsiders, and the building in which they will eventually meet could well be provided through the good intentions of their new-found friends from England or North America. When this happens, the dependency syndrome is developed within a very short period of time. The Westerners who create this kind of dependent church planting have probably heard very little about indigenous principles of self-support. Sadly, in their joy of giving, some do not realize the full ramifications of their monetary policies.

Fortunately, there is also a seventh group. This includes those who used to be dependent but have made the transition to supporting their ministries with local resources. Such churches exhibit joy, pride and dignity as they experience God’s blessing for taking this step of faith. Later in this article I will give several examples of churches like that.

What is the good news?

Look at the spread of the gospel in the time of the New Testament, and you will find that the Apostle Paul did not use outside funds to plant churches. In fact, one transfer of funds we find in the New Testament is from mission field churches back to the mother church when there was a famine in Jerusalem. (2 Cor. 8) Another is when mission field churches contributed to the support of their missionary, the Apostle Paul. (Phil. 4:15)

In our day, there is evidence that outside support is not essential to the growth and development of the Christian movement. Consider the rapid growth of a church in Ethiopia from 1938 to 1943. During this five-year period, membership increased from 100 to 10,000 believers with no missionaries and no outside funding present. The church in China increased from one million to perhaps as many as 50 million believers following 1951 when all missionaries and outside funding were removed.

Rev. Gerald Bustin illustrates this point quite well in an article regarding the planting of churches in Papua New Guinea and the former Soviet Union. That mission society started about 200 churches in New Guinea. Upon the occasion of the 20-year celebration, the people in New Guinea sent air tickets to the missionaries in America, inviting them to return for the celebration.

In the Ukraine (part of the former Soviet Union), after several years of church planting, the local believers asked for the privilege of repaying the missionaries for the expenses they had in bringing the gospel to them. All of this is to say that planting dependent churches may often happen, but it does not need to happen. That is good news for those involved in cross-cultural church-planting.

How does dependency affect the meaning of the gospel?

When outside money and other material things accompany the spread of the Christian gospel, sometimes people get the wrong impression about the gospel itself. For example, if those to whom the gospel is preached begin to receive material things that come with the gospel, they may become more interested in those things than in the gospel itself. I once met two missionaries working in western Tanzania. When they arrived, one of the first questions the local people asked was, “Where are your shipping containers?” When they said they did not have any shipping containers, the people said, “What kind of missionaries are you with no shipping containers?” Clearly the people were thinking about what they might get when servants of the Lord arrived from the outside.

What is wrong with the spread of the gospel in this way? Is it not precisely that the gospel itself is being distorted? Think for a moment about what the good news of the gospel is.

  • First, people will learn about the broken relationship between God and mankind and that there is one who repairs that relationship: Jesus Christ.
  • Second, when that gospel comes, one is freed from the burden of past sin.
  • Third, one is introduced to the Holy Spirit, a power greater than all the powers which caused so many problems in the past.
  • Fourth, one learns that if godly principles are followed, many other problems in life can be resolved.
  • Fifth, there is the most important benefit of all, eternal life for all who believe. All of these things come with the gospel.

Is there any price to be paid for this salvation? It is free, with one exception: For the rest of our lives, believers are obligated to give back to God some of what He has given to us. In other words, such things as tithing (giving back a portion of one’s income) becomes a part of the privilege and responsibility we have as believers.

When people come into the Christian faith for the material possessions they get, something goes terribly wrong in the spread of the gospel. That might be the single most important reason why the dependency problem so often cripples the Christian movement and why it is so urgent that it be avoided or dealt with where it exists.

What can be done where the problem exists?

No one should look for quick and easy solutions to the problem of dependency and especially where it has been in place for many years. Old habits are hard to break when changing them means learning a whole new way of getting support for the church. Those receiving salary from overseas funds may be reluctant to see the system change. Those responsible for creating dependency in the first place (like missionaries) may hesitate to see it
change because they have been getting a good feeling from giving, even if it has created dependency and left others unable to stand on their own two feet.

There are things which can be done to either avoid or resolve the problem of dependency. The following are a few suggestions for both church leaders and missionaries.

  1. We should all recognize that the healthiest churches are not those where leaders or members constantly look to outsiders for financial support. If you want to see joy and a sense of satisfaction on the faces and in the hearts of believers, don’t look for it among those who are dependent on foreign funds. Rather, look for it among those who have discovered the joy of giving back to God something of what He has given to them from the resources which He has put close at hand.
  2. Begin to recognize the kind of things which cause dependency and seek to overcome the temptation to establish or continue such practices. It will take serious determination not to think of solving problems with outside funds. And remember, the problem cannot be solved if the concept of stewardship is not first built into the Christian message.I will give an example. In South Africa there is a church which was very poor. 30 years ago only unemployed women and children were in that church. Leaders regularly went overseas to find funding for their church members. Then something dramatic occurred. The church was turned around. Men began coming to church, women became self-employed and soon the church was no longer depending on funds from overseas. When one asks what change took place, the women will say that they were taught how to make a living by making and selling dresses, grass mats or baskets. They were also taught that of everything they made and sold, ten percent (the tithe) belonged to the Lord. In fact, they were taught that giving (tithing) was to be built into the earning process. God honored that kind of teaching, and today that church is well able to stand on its own two feet. At a recent weekend conference, those present put into the collection the equivalent of over one million U.S. dollars. All of that was from a church which not so long ago included only unemployed women and children.
  3. It is important to realize that the need for spiritual renewal is at the root of this problem. Do not expect people who do not know the Lord to joyfully support their own churches. Do not expect believers whose faith has grown cold to willingly pay their tithes and offerings to the Lord. Spiritual life must precede an emphasis on stewardship teaching.
  4. There is something else which must precede stewardship teaching. This is what I call a feeling of true personal ownership. Without this, people in dependent churches will often look to someone else to build their buildings, pay their pastors, buy their vehicles or support their development projects. Imagine what could happen if people were to take full personal ownership for their own churches. Things which previously were thought to be impossible would all of a sudden become possible. Resources would be discovered which, prior to this, no one could see. These would be resources which were close at hand all along. Only when local ownership is fully in place will people begin to discover the joy of supporting their own church and the work of God’s Kingdom.
  5. There is sometimes a high price to be paid for moving from dependency toward self-reliance. Some local church leaders may need to say “No, thank you” to the outside funding which has been supporting them and their families. This happened in East Africa about 30 years ago when local leaders asked the people overseas to stop supporting them financially. They were actually declining the funds used to pay their own salaries. What followed, however, was dramatic. The leaders soon learned that local believers were not only capable of paying their salaries, but also able to pay for their own church buildings and vehicles. They also planted new churches from their own resources. They started a pension fund for retired pastors, something no one until that time thought could be done with local resources. Then those believers in East Africa heard about homeless children overseas and took a collection in Kenya shillings worth about US$30,000 to help with that need. All of these things happened after they paid the price to stop the outside funding.
  6. One might ask why it is so important to resolve the problem of dependency among mission-established churches. Think for a moment about how many funds are being raised for evangelism yet are actually being used to support churches where people are already evangelized. Is it right to keep on supporting those who have heard the gospel many times when there are millions of people elsewhere who are still waiting to hear it for the very first time? In some places the gospel has been preached for 100 years or more and yet the people are still looking to others to support their pastors or build their buildings. For those who have not yet heard the gospel even once, that is just not fair.

Remember the good news

The good news is that dependency does not need to be considered a terminal illness. There are churches which have proved that, as I showed previously.

For those who are interested in pursuing this issue further, a resource is Five Stones Global (http://www.fivestonesglobal com).. Their website has many articles on dependency and self-reliance.

A final word of encouragement

It is my desire to see those who feel trapped in dependent churches learn how to discover the joy and freedom which results from overcoming dependency. I dedicate my time and energy to helping those who want to discover the joy of standing on their own two feet.

Remember the Macedonian Church which the Apostle Paul mentioned in 2 Corinthians 8:3? Of these people Paul wrote, “out of severe trial and extreme poverty they pleaded for the privilege of giving.” Notice also that he mentions that “they gave themselves first to the Lord.” Without spiritual renewal, churches will not overcome the dependency syndrome.

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

The Surprising Relevance of the Three-Self Formula

Reprinted from Mission Frontiers July-August 2007

The Surprising Relevance of the Three-Self Formula

Editor’s Note: Henry Venn’s father, John Venn, was rector of Clapham parish and pastor to William Wilberforce and others who made up the famous group later called the “Clapham Sect.” Henry’s grandfather, also named Henry Venn was the “spiritual father” of the Clapham Sect.

The Three-Self Formula is much better known in mission circles than it is practiced. It has been around for over 150 years and it states that a newly planted church is mature or indigenous when it is self-governing, self-propagating and self-supporting. It was first popularized and implemented by a pair of mission executives who headed the largest mission agencies of their day. An Englishman, Henry Venn, headed the Anglican Church Missionary Society from 1841-72, while an American, Rufus Anderson, led the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions from 1832-66. They represented some of the best mission thinking of the second generation of leaders of the modern missionary movement; both men arrived at the formula independently of one another at approximately the same time.

The thinking behind the formula derived from field experiences of the personnel of both agencies as well as from Bible study. The goal of the formula was simple: to speed up the pace of world evangelization by moving missionaries on to new places while the leaders of the churches they started would complete the task of local evangelization. Venn and Anderson gave missionaries a goal to work toward: the production of churches that were mature enough to function on their own without missionary help in their own locale. Once that was achieved, missionaries could go to the “regions beyond,” sure in the knowledge that the churches they left behind could succeed without them. That, after all, was how the Apostle Paul proceeded in his mission work.

This sounds good, but what was the result? Actually, it is hard to make a definitive assessment of how much the Three-Self Formula streamlined world missions, because it was so often ignored. During the period of colonialism, missionaries preferred to linger in one place rather than move on. Not only was it easier to remain in charge of the churches they planted, but they also began to doubt whether local leaders were ready to take over. This led to the problem of dependency, where foreigners felt they had to lead indefinitely the churches they planted, and local people felt powerless to run their own churches.

Roland Allen reacted strongly to this state of affairs in his famous 1912 book, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?, where he compared the mission efforts of that time with those of the Apostle Paul. Understandably, he found that Paul’s methods were far superior. He called on missionaries to have more confidence in their converts and to release control over them as Paul did, trusting that the Holy Spirit would help them learn how to work effectively in their churches, even through their inevitable mistakes. But Allen predicted that few would pay attention to his proposals, as colonialism had not yet ended.

In this prediction, Allen was correct, as “indigenous principles,” which incorporated the Three-Self Formula, became popular after developing nations became independent in the second half of the twentieth century. Along with the end of colonialism came the sudden interest in mission circles to indigenize local churches. Apparently, the thinking went something like this: if leaders of the developing nations are now expected to run their own countries, perhaps it is also time to allow the local church leaders to run their own churches. Not only that, but church leaders also insisted on taking over from missionaries after the prolonged delay associated with Western domination.

With the end of colonialism, we would naturally expect the end of the dependency syndrome as the Three-Self came back into prominence through the writings of people like Melvin Hodges and Donald McGavran. But that did not happen. Why? In fact, the Three-Self Formula came under attack from various quarters. We can summarize the gist of these multiple objections under the following six headings:

1. Lack of Cultural Perspective

Cultural anthropologists objected that the Three-Self Formula describes “indigenous” churches in terms of church policies rather than in terms of culture itself. As missionaries became more aware of anthropology, this appeared to be a major deficiency in the formula. Some missionary anthropologists suggested adding more “selfs” in order to include the notion that an indigenous church would communicate Christianity effectively in its own context. Probably the best suggestion came from Paul Hiebert who coined “self-theologizing” as the fourth self. By this he meant the ability of an indigenous church to read and interpret Scripture within its local culture.

2. Too Much Emphasis on “Self”

Some critics said the formula promoted a dangerous autonomy in the membership of the global body of Christ in an age of interdependence. This objection misses the point that the goal of the formula was to produce mature churches that could handle their own affairs. The word “self” was not meant to indicate self-centeredness or absolute autonomy, but rather responsibility and maturity. It did not mean to exclude reliance on God, but indicated that these churches had no need to remain dependent on outsiders.

3. A Hindrance to Partnerships

One of the first popular mission methods of the postcolonial period was the formation of “partnerships.” Since these are often in reality one-way flows of resources and not true partnerships, their advocates see the Three-Self Formula as an obstacle. But does the formula actually preclude valid partnerships? Of course not. If all parties in the partnerships are Three-Self bodies, then it is much more certain that it will be a partnership of equals, and not a disguise for dependency.

4. A Hindrance to Western Support of Foreign Evangelists and Missionaries

Another popular trend in postcolonial missions is support by wealthier Christians from the global North for poorer evangelists and missionaries in the global South. Again the Three-Self Formula is seen as an obstacle that must go in order to allow this method freedom to operate. Certainly, if the formula is valid at all, then this mission method is flawed. Support by Christians in the global North of workers who live in the global South perpetuates the old colonial mentality of wealthier Christians holding the purse strings while the rest do the actual work. Furthermore, it removes local accountability, whereby local Christians in the global South should be responsible for looking after their own workers. Finally, it can easily create dependency, where Christians in the global South may decide not to work for God if no Northern funds are available.

5. A Hindrance to Aid from Rich Christians to the Global Poor

Given that the gap between rich and poor is widening around the world, some mission thinkers say it is time to discard the Three-Self Formula in order to let aid flow. But does the formula actually prevent humanitarian aid from moving to those who desperately need it? Of course not. It does imply, however, that any such aid should not be perpetual.

6. Permission Not To Be Generous

A recent allegation states that current missiologists have twisted Venn’s original intentions in order to permit wealthy Western Christians to keep their money for themselves. According to this objection, Venn only meant to prevent Western domination in missions and was not so concerned about creating dependency. But domination and dependency are just two sides of one coin. Whenever one side is dominant in money or power, there is a danger that the other side may become dependent. Furthermore, since the majority who engage in missions today consider the Three-Self Formula obsolete, how can it so dramatically influence the generosity of Christian giving? For those who espouse the formula, the thinking about giving would be that all Christians, rich and poor, should give sacrificially to propagate God’s work where they are able, but without creating dependency.

Over the past few decades, the Three-Self Formula has been called an elevation of the self, an evil autonomy in the body of Christ, silent about Jesus’ love for the poor, a projection of American value systems, a hindrance to partnerships, a sacred cow that needs to be slaughtered, outdated, and senile. Yet the fact that all its opponents still regularly attack it as a worthy adversary is an admission that it continues to have staying power. It has survived over 150 years, but what exactly is its relevance today? Simply this: the formula, whatever may be its shortcomings and blind spots, remains the criterion in missions for a church or Christian organization that is not dependent. takes Christians in the developing world more seriously than many other current popular mission methods that continue to create dependency. A Three-Self body of Christians has enough strength and responsibility to work for Christ whether others are available to help or not.

The formula was the first projection toward a postcolonial mission method that respects local converts and cultures enough to assume that each locality can have active Christians who operate fully under the guidance and resources of the Holy Spirit to bring salvation in Christ to people in their context and beyond, for the glory of God. Many of its modern opponents seem to think local Christians in the developing world cannot carry out these functions without help from foreigners. But why should anyone desire that bodies of believers in various parts of the world not become self-governing, self-propagating, and self-supporting, when this is exactly what it will take to complete the task of world evangelization? So the Three-Self Formula remains relevant because it takes Christians in the developing world more seriously than many other current popular mission methods that continue to create dependency.

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

Could Inspiring More “We Did It” Stories Help Break the Dependency Mindset?

Could Inspiring More “We Did It” Stories Help Break the Dependency Mindset?

During my years in Haiti I was involved in numerous construction projects. On one occasion, I arrived a few days in advance of a larger team to finalize the foundation for a church school which was being 100% financed with US dollars.

Although the local church had participated in the demolition of the old earthquake damaged building, they had yet to contribute even a small amount of money. Thinking I would further inspire local participation, I suggested the pastor take an offering from the church to help offset some of the costs of serving lunch to the workers.

Although an offering was taken, no one from the church congregation gave any money.

When I asked the pastor, “Why?” I was told, “It’s because the people see you are an American missionary. They know you always have enough money to pay for everything. Therefore, they don’t give.” Besides feeling hurt and disappointed, I remember asking myself, “What would this congregation have done if we Americans had never contributed to their school?”

Recently, a Haitian friend of mine helped answer my hypothetical question while we were co-conducting a symposium in Haiti centered around the theme, “What is the current state of the Haitian National Church?” Valery Vital-Herne, a three-generation pastor and the Country Director for Micah Challenge said: “The Haitian Church is a dependent church and a church full of initiative.” How can a church be dependent and at the same time full of initiative? The Haitian Church is a poor church and a rich church at the same time.

We’ve been receiving missionaries for years—missionaries investing in education, investing in orphanages, investing in building churches, investing in everything. The result in part is having dependent churches, dependent church leaders who say, “To build the next school we need to have a blan (foreigner). We need someone from the United States.”

But at the same time, when those churches receive a “No!” from a blan, or have struggled to find a white missionary, guess what? Years later you find a big building. And those pastors will tell you proudly, “We did it! We searched for international help. We didn’t find it. So, we told the church, ‘We serve a big God. Let’s put our hands together and let’s build that.’”

They feel a sense of pride and a sense of ownership. That’s why I said the Haitian church is a dependent church. That dependency mindset is still there. When they don’t find foreign funds, they work together and start schools and start churches. Some of the big buildings you see downtown or in Delmas are debt free, paid for only by Haitians.1

Why is being able to say, “We did it,” really important? As Valery shared about Haitian churches saying, “We did it” and “the sense of pride and sense of ownership” that pastors and their congregations experience through trusting in a big God, I was reminded of a couple of important principles.
The first is local dependence on God. In Revelation chapters 2 and 3, we learn that the Lord is watching each local church to see how well it utilizes the gifts and resources he has entrusted to it directly. Zambian missionary Dwight Kopp says, “If this were not so, Jesus would not have written seven separate letters to the churches in Revelation. Instead, one letter could have been sufficient—blaming them all for the sin in the church of Sardis.”2

Secondly, he multiplies “few” resources into “many” resources based on faithfulness (Matt. 25:21) and according to the power of the Holy Spirit at work within a community of believers. (Eph. 3:20)

With these in mind, could it be that when we as Westerners give towards church building projects in a foreign land, that along with creating dependency on us, we are actually hindering that local congregation’s intimate trusting relationship with God? How often do we unintentionally bypass God’s process of maturing faith and steal the real blessings of “satisfaction” and “sense of ownership” God wants to instill in every local church? Instead of writing more checks to building projects, I’d like to suggest we look for ways to inspire more “We did it!” stories.

With these in mind, could it be that when we as Westerners give towards church building projects in a foreign land, that along with creating dependency on us, we are actually hindering that local congregation’s intimate trusting relationship with God?

Endnotes
  1. Vital-Herne, Valery, 2013, audio transcription from presentation, “Ten Characteristics of the Haitian National Church”, http:// http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqd7WhJS7lI.Awake Africa!!!”, Dwight Kopp, Feb 19, 2006. Copyright (c) 2005 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS)

  2. “Awake Africa!!!”, Dwight Kopp, Feb 19, 2006. Copyright (c) 2005 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS)

This is an article from the May-June 2021 issue: What Have You Brought For Us?

What Have You Brought For Us?

Reflections on Unhealthy Dependency via My Short-Term Missions (STM) Experiences

What Have You Brought For Us?

The Dominican Republic

The cattle truck turned off the highway onto a dirt road that wound through acres and acres of sugarcane. Two more cattle trucks followed, each one loaded with one to two dozen eager Americans. I was one of them. We were headed to yet another remote Dominican village. After getting our bearings, we began our visit in the village by following the same routine of all the other mission trips I had taken. We broke off into teams and set out to meet needs, pray, and share the gospel with precious people who needed Jesus.

Each and every day, we were welcomed with the joyful screams of children and the welcoming glances of the crowds who were gathered outside the clinics. But something happened one particular day that got my attention. Children began to shout, practically in unison, “Where are the dulces?” “Dulces” means goodies or sweets in Spanish. A girl who looked about six years old pulled on my arm and asked in Spanish, “What have you brought for us?” I whole-heartedly responded, “I brought with me the love of Jesus.” Upon hearing this, the girl instantly dropped my hand and ran towards another American group who indeed were passing out dulces.

Something really bothered me about that seemingly insignificant interaction with the kids. But I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. Truth be told, I sat uncomfortably with this memory for several years before it started to make sense.

My Lesson Learned: The Gospel of Goods Waters Down the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Eventually, I was able to make sense of what I experienced back in the Dominican Republic. Group after group of foreign Christian visitors had come to the Dominican Republic using an evangelism method that included telling the gospel, giving handouts and meeting needs. The Dominican people had become so accustomed to this method that their favorable responses had very little to do with Jesus and a whole lot to with what the “Jesus-people” brought.

The kids who were seeking dulces from the foreign Christians who showed up on the cattle trucks are representative of a larger destructive pattern that sends the message that the good news of the gospel is not good enough. We unwittingly use a bait-and-switch style of evangelism: Here are some candy and free medicine … Oh and by the way, we will share the gospel with you tucked in there somewhere. The recipients of this, in turn, use their own style of bait-and-switch: We will put up with your gospel proselytization as long as you give us something first. It is a sickly pattern that we unintentionally perpetuate, but perpetuate nonetheless. The words of someone on the receiving end of missions may bring clarity:

One day Bolacha explained to me [Chris Little] that there are two kinds of gospels in this world. The first one, the gospel of Christ, provides for forgiveness of sin, eternal life, and sets people free from the power of the devil. This gospel involves suffering since Christ commanded us to take up our cross and follow Him (Matt. 16:24). The second gospel, the gospel of goods (“o evangelho dos bens” in Portuguese), is the counterfeit gospel, which offers material wealth alongside the true gospel, enticing people to become Christians. In his opinion, the fundamental problem with the gospel of goods is that when the goods run out the people run away. He said he had seen denomination after denomination import shipping containers of food, clothes, etc., during times of drought and famine, attracting thousands of people. But when the shipping containers stopped coming the people were nowhere to be found.1

It never crossed my mind before that what seems to be compassion may actually water down the gospel and the process of making disciples. How do we begin to make disciples if we don’t even know what people are actually responding to when we interact with them? How can our hosts choose to follow Jesus as Lord and Savior based on His merit—what He said and did on behalf of the world—when all they see is the dulces?

Compassion in and of itself is not the problem.

The problem lies in the repetitive truckloads of foreigners, month after month, who offer fringe benefits—often labeled as development and compassion ministry—along with the gospel. We have conditioned a whole country into passionately seeking the dulces, while half-heartedly seeking Jesus. We can defend the holistic gospel—the integral blend of word and deed—all day long, but this won’t take away the struggle that Bolacha and others face due to our strong tendency to create unhealthy dependency on our goods as we spread the Good News. This gospel of goods that Bolacha refers to is the opposite of Jesus’ go-to approach in Luke 9:3–6 (NIV):

He told them: “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt. Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake thedust off your feet as a testimony against them.” So they set out and went from village to village, proclaiming the good news and healing people everywhere.

The mutual give-and-take of the relationships between the disciples and their hosts is embedded within Jesus’ instructions. The disciples gave up their goods and position of power, while offering the good news and healing of the sick through Jesus’ authority. The people within the villages offered shelter, food, fellowship, and peace. Reflecting on the girl who quickly disengaged with me and my message of Jesus’ love because I didn’t have any candy to give her causes me to resonate with Jean Johnson’s comment in a Mission Frontiers article, “I would rather have potential Persons of Peace reveal the true intentions of their heart or spiritual condition than have them half-heartedly join in a movement effort for Jesus Christ because of mixed motives.”2

Papua New Guinea

When I went to Papua New Guinea, I decided to go strictly as a learner. This included gleaning from the experiences of others in that area. During my time there, an American missionary shared with me a revealing account. He had spent over a decade in a particular village. His main role was to mobilize and lead a team of local people to translate the New Testament into their own heart language. The local people joyfully agreed to this Scripture translation project.

As time progressed, the missionary deeply desired that the local people oversee the translation project based on their own determination, skills and resources.

But, he encountered great resistance with this transfer of ownership. When the reality that the project would no longer be free nor serve as a gateway for further development, their interest in the translation project quickly faded. I could sense the heartache in the missionary’s voice as he shared this account, but I could also see that he had learned some valuable lessons, which he had humbly passed on for the benefit of others such as myself.

My Lesson Learned: Ownership and Reproducibility Need to Be Built-in from the Beginning

There are three key reasons why local people did not have the desire to continue with the New Testament translation project.

First, the people’s enthusiastic acceptance of the project was based on their hope for the personal benefits. Precedent and prior missionary activity had led the local people to anticipate the fringe benefits that typically come with mission-driven projects such as trucks, resources, salaries and amenities. At the end of the day, the local people did not desire the New Testament in their own language as much as they desired the benefits of the project.

Second, ownership is not easily transferable, and therefore must be present from the beginning. When I was 10 years old, my parents had a vision for me to have perfectly straight teeth. What followed was three years of appointments and fees. As a child, this vision was never mine, it was theirs. Do you know what resulted? After it was all said, done, and paid for, I stopped wearing my retainers, and my teeth started to move out of alignment. In the same way, local people must perceive themselves as owning and stewarding their own vision, from the beginning, or everything will go awry. Without such ownership from the start, the local self-perception might look something like this: I am a recipient—an employee—and therefore, I will temporarily plug myself into another’s vision; this project does not live or die based on me, but based on the effort of the mission worker.

Third, the pattern and precedent of depending on outsiders was already deeply embedded in the local people’s psyches. Even if it was their passion to have the New Testament in their heart language, they could not take on the components that were not readily sustainable and reproducible for them. If our mission models come with costly price tags and require great cultural leaps and bounds to conform to an outsider culture, local people will not be able to reproduce these models without outside support. The tragic result is that we unwittingly erect higher barriers for local disciple-makers by setting unfeasible standards and making locally sustainable alternatives feel inferior. This same truth about reproducibility applies to short-term missions, partnerships and resident missions, no matter how sincere and heartfelt we are about a project or initiative.

I am so grateful that this missionary was willing to share what he learned with me. His story reveals the importance of local ownership and reproducibility, and the fact that both elements need to be built-in from the very beginning, rather than transferred from the outsider to the insider at some later date.

Uganda

While I was in Uganda with my husband, visiting some relatives, we tagged along with a STM team made up of Americans who visited a Ugandan refugee settlement. We observed them as they put on a program for the children. Sam, a Ugandan man, accompanied them to serve as their interpreter. The team sang songs in English using hand motions and then shared a short lesson. Beyond serving as an interpreter, Sam played an instrumental role in rallying the kids and keeping their attention with his charismatic personality and energy. When the day was over, the STM team leader summarized their experience in the following way:

If we were a band, Sam would be the singer, the guitar player, the bass guitar player and the drummer. Oh, and us? We would just be in the background swaying and trying our best not to get in Sam’s way.

Wow! What a perfect image and honest reflection of what really happened in regard to the kids’ program at the refugee settlement that day. If someone would have asked Sam to share about his experience, I wonder what he might have said!

My Lesson Learned: We Reinforce a Pattern of “Hiding Strengths”

Sam could have done everything without the team—as a matter of fact, any Christian Ugandan team could have ministered effectively in that setting. Sadly, Sam, who knew the culture and language inside and out, was relegated to the role of interpreter in the shadows of the foreign visitors as they served in the spotlight.

How does this feed unhealthy dependency? As outsiders, entering places that we tend to label as the developing world, we often take on the mindset and role of heroes. We inwardly think that we, the ones who “have it all together,” are here to assist those who “do not.” I can say this with ease because this was my original assumption and behavior. Upon arriving in countries I had never been to before, I revealed all my strengths—my access to finances, my many connections, my higher education, my acquired knowledge and my well-rounded theology. Subsequently, I did my best to hide my weaknesses from my hosts—my culture shock, my selfishness, my desire for human praise, my anxiety, my broken relationships on the team, my lack of making disciples back home and so much more.

Meanwhile, the beneficiaries of my mission outreaches did the exact opposite. They presented their weaknesses— their lack of financial resources, education, ministry tools, equipment and so forth. At the same time, they hid their strengths such as musical capacity, ingenuity to fix and make things, the knack for working within the culture, deep and practical spirituality, faith that moves mountains, stamina under persecution and so much more.
Presenting our strengths as helpers from the outside, while causing the insider beneficiaries (who are the insiders) to hide their strengths, is both the cause and the condition of unhealthy dependency. In the end it is not helpful to either side.

My Guiding Principles

I still have much to learn about the causes and consequences of unhealthy dependency. One thing I do is try to take what I have already learned and create my own guiding principles. Based on what I wrote in this article, these are three of my guiding principles for cross-cultural mission engagement:

  1. I will strive to invite people to seek and follow Jesus based on His own merit, believing the Good News is good; therefore, I will “pack light” when it comes to any Great Commission efforts locally and globally.
  2. I will encourage and use reproducible forms and patterns of love, mercy, compassion and discipleship, so those who I influence will be capable of reproducing the same.
  3. I will do my best to unearth the immensely beautiful God-given capacity and strength of the people I serve.

As I gain more understanding and more experience, I trust my list of guiding principles will be refined and increased. Will you join me in creating your own list of guiding principles of how to avoid creating unhealthy dependency in your local and global mission endeavors? Those we serve deserve it!
If you need any assistance with understanding and creating guiding principles that lead to disciples and churches that are healthy and thrive without dependency, please see the article written by Maria Gilbertson, “A Support Structure for Staying the Course,” in this issue of Mission Frontiers.

Will you join me in creating your own list of guiding principles of how to avoid creating unhealthy dependency in your local and global mission endeavors?

Endnotes
  1. Quoted in Jean Johnson, We Are Not The Hero: A Missionary’s Guide for Sharing Christ, Not a Culture of Dependency (Sisters OR: Deep River Books, 2012), 118.

  2. Jean Johnson, “Using Foreign Money to Start, Sustain, and Speed Up Movements,” Mission Frontiers. (November 2020).

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

30 Day Prayer Guide for the Muslim World

Download or order your free copy now!

30 Day Prayer Guide for the Muslim World

http://www.GlobalGates.info/30Days

Global Gates is committed to reaching every 10/40 Window diaspora community that God has placed in global gateway cities. And, we believe that prayer is the beginning point for every great co-laboring with God. That is why: 

  1. Global Gates missionaries this year have partnered with Paul Filidis at WorldChristian.com to write all of the articles in this year’s 30 Days of Prayer for the Muslim World prayer guide, slated for Ramadan, April 13 - May 12, 2021. 
  2. Global Gates is offering a FREE copy of the prayer guide (which would otherwise cost $3.50 plus shipping) to anyone who will partner with us in this prayer movement.

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

The Global Great Commission Network

Connect Social Networking Site

The Global Great Commission Network

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

“Insider” Movements: How Do You Know if You Have One?

“Insider” Movements: How Do You Know if You Have One?

In Monty Python and the Holy Grail King Arthur approaches a French castle to explain his quest for the Grail and is told “we’ve already got one.” It’s a humorous scene, and of course, they don’t have the Grail. But then, how would they know if they did?

In The Lord of the Rings, Gimli is riding with others towards Helms Deep and is expounding about his culture, including the bearded nature of the women of his culture which he admits has led to the idea that they have no women. He begins to comment on the ridiculous nature of such a view just as he unceremoniously falls from his horse.

Some reactions to news about insider movements resemble the comments above: when I speak of insider movements and say we “have one,” I get asked “how do you know?” And since IMs don’t look like what people expect, there is a suspicion that they don’t really exist.

I am primarily interested in this relative to insider movements, but of course similar questions apply to any sort of movement, and so I will write with a more general approach as well.

The answer to any question depends greatly on the meaning and assumptions behind the question: what is a movement anyway?

What Makes a Movement a Movement?

Depending on who you ask, a movement may be measured by how many believers, or how many fellowships/ churches you have, or more likely, some combination. Time factors may be included: X number of new fellowships in Y amount of time, etc. More and more reports of movements, such as what we report in MF, also look at things like how many “streams” of key leadership and churches have multiplied other leaders and churches down their respective chains, and how many iterations of multiplication that has produced.

In some insider movements, while less frequently reported or captured in databases, similar data is tracked, discussed and also corrected. I remember one meeting with insider movement leaders who were discussing the status of fellowships in various regions of their country. Several of them mentioned numbers and added

anecdotes. At one point a brother, who had already shared, interrupted to say he had misinformed everyone. As he thought about it more, he realized he needed to reduce what he had reported because he remembered that several fellowships had ended for various reasons.

While there is a place for such quantitative data, is this the sort of thing that is most important to track? I have been more and more convinced that we need to pay more careful attention to qualitative elements.

Years ago we started using certain criteria and teaching others to use them by modifying the “Three Self ” criteria developed by both Henry Venn (Anglican) and Rufus Anderson (Presbyterian). Another fourth “self ” was suggested over time in various circles, and so we began to speak of “Four Self” Movements, which included being:

  • Self-Propagating
  • Self-Governing
  • Self-Supporting
  • Self-Theologizing

We developed definitions and a tool for assessing progress in movements among the unreached. But over time, a number of things made my insider leader friends and me increasingly uneasy about these standards.

First, all of the first three selves were developed in response to the felt need for handing over already functioning mission churches to local leadership. They were primarily used, in other words, to address developments in a relatively established mission situation, instead of a context looking to foster newer movements.

Second, as such, there is a sense in which these selves were in fact not part of the original vision or purpose of the churches they were now trying to encourage to be independent. The selves were never really meant to be criteria to measure a movement but were employed to assist in a hand over. Origins matter.

Third, the emphasis on “self ” created more of a focus on just that, the dimension of self. Thus, it was easy to miss the dynamics of propagating, governing, supporting and theologizing. The ultimate aim of that thinking was to get younger mission churches to do these things themselves.

Fourth, and closely related to this, we became convinced that the use of and continued repeating of the word “self ” in our day was a not-so-subtle message that smelled of Western individualism. This seemed directly counter to the picture of koinonia and partnership so deeply rooted in the New Testament movement(s), which served to connect churches in ways that were interdependent.

Finally, that fourth self, “self-theologizing,” created huge misunderstandings, not only among those outside of our organization but also among those within our agency. This was so much the case that often we were unable to overcome the resulting static, doubt and confusion merely by the constant redefining of what we meant by “self ” and “theologizing.” We concluded that different terminology would be important.

Our Own Training Caught Up

In addition to these considerations, we as trainers were being affected by our own delivery of our programs. That may sound strange, but allow me to explain.

One component of our training is a series of five studies focused on Luke and Acts. In a short period of time we go through those two books in their entirety five times, each time asking questions related to healthy movements. The aim is to help those we train to identify the dynamics that help movements grow and spread and mature and remain healthy.

As a result of these repeated readings, those of us in leadership found that these texts, the very ones we were using to train others, kept speaking to us. And by us, please read me to be saying, me!

The dynamics which we had discovered inductively in Luke and Acts were actually quite different from the four selves we had been telling our trainees to use in applying the training. There was a growing sense of disconnect and discomfort internally.

For all of these reasons, we felt a change was needed and decided to try to rethink, simplify and re-express. We asked several people from different cultures within our o\rganization to suggest changes.
As a result, we came to speak of “Four Signs of Healthy Movements.” They were simple, and we attached biblical references that seemed to sum them up.

Our summary was that healthy movements exhibit some of the things the “four selves” were trying to get at: more multiplication, more leaders, more generosity and more engagement in Scripture. But they will also demonstrate more miraculous evidence of the Spirit, more character, more reconciled relationships, different attitudes toward women and children, hearts for others to know Jesus, hearts to know Jesus ourselves and on and on.

So, how do we know?

Basically, we talk about these things. We talk about them personally, in our own lives, not just in the movement as an “other” thing. We discuss whether a team is seeing these dynamics, and if so, how developed are they. It is oral, conversational, communal.

Are there quantitative-numerical details that could surface in the answers to these qualitative descriptors? Certainly.

But in our view, if the dynamics are healthy, then there is a movement, regardless of the size or numerical measurements.

Conclusion

So, how do we know if we have one? The answer to that, implicit in the previous text, is essentially, “only through close enough relationship to see and experience it.”

There are several factors that make it hard to demonstrate that such movements are real. Security issues are probably one of the most common. But this element of relational trust is another (they are connected, but not identical).

Add to that factor the additional element of focusing on qualitative measurements, and I can fully appreciate referring back to Gimli, that the idea arises that there aren’t any.

The church in its local, Catholic and movement expressions is the Body of Christ. It is a living thing.

This suggests an analogy to my mind. The fact of human DNA is what determines that “this” is a person, a human being, one who will grow, develop, and become mature. In the same way, I am suggesting that if the right DNA
is in place, then we have a movement. I am further suggesting that the most crucial and determinative DNA is qualitative. The primary job description, then, for pioneer church-planters is to disciple and coach from day one with the aim of fostering this DNA.

Healthy, growing movements flow from the right DNA.

Endnotes
  1. This article is adapted from Measuring Insider Movements? Shifting to a Qualitative Standard International Journal of Frontier Missiology, 35:1, Spring 2018, pp. 21ff.

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

“Insider” Movements: The Role of Being an Alongsider

“Insider” Movements: The Role of Being an Alongsider

The movements we refer to as IMs required new vocabulary, and the nature of the movements under discussion led to the use of the word “insider.” Along the way, the question began to emerge as to how to refer to those “outsiders” who served in the early pioneering and ongoing growth of such movements.

A term that seems to be gaining traction is “alongsider.” In fact, Frontier Ventures is beginning to weave this term into much of what we do, how we talk and who we seek to be.

But what does it mean, or what do we mean by it?

I begin with the premise that what we are is more fundamentally important than what we do. This is true of leaders, of the mission movement, and it is actually deeply connected to our missiology.

At the outset, allow me to reflect on several biblical streams in the genesis of my own understanding of how important “being,” and especially our “being in Him,” truly is.

First, of course, are Jesus’ own statements about this, for example in John 14 through 17. “I in you, and you in me, and we in them, and them in us” might serve as a summary.

Turning to Paul, let me use just one statement, his opening in Colossians 1:2, in which he writes to “the in-Christ-holy- and-faithful-brothers/sisters-in-Colossae.” The hyphens are my attempt to capture the sense of the united nature of the double identity: in Christ, and in Colossae.

Paul is context specific, yes, but also spiritually grounded. There is no way to be in Christ other than in a context, and no way to live authentically in a context other than in Christ.

In this paper, I will look at a few scenes from “the field” to try to describe personal experiences of “being” and trying to “be” alongside in several contexts, then address the implications of this for what I call missional leadership, rooted in “being,” and helpfully described as leading “alongside.”

“Being, Alongside”

Scene 1

My wife and I had arrived in Rwanda earlier in the day to take part with our organization’s African leadership team in a series of meetings, planning for the future of the sending bases there and spending time in Scripture and prayer. The center where we planned to gather was a bit more than 200 kilometers from the airport by vehicle.

After some rest, we and the team piled into a van and began the journey. The van was slow. Very slow. I consoled myself thinking that our driver was being careful in the city. We would pick up speed once we got out to the highway.
But we got slower. And slower. I am not sure, but we may have been passed by a bicycle. Or two. Evening descended. The sun disappeared. The moon arose. And we crawled on.

Sometime after one in the morning we stopped near a very small town. We were still not quite half-way. I was grateful for the stop, for several reasons involving physical comfort that I will not expound upon. However, it gradually became clear that there were other reasons for the stop. The condition of the vehicle was being debated.

My very practical mind set to work. “I have some cash. We can rent another vehicle. We could get everyone there sooner. We need to be rested for the days ahead.”

I wanted to say those words to our Africa Director, but waited as he was speaking to our Rwanda Coordinator. My internal struggle was almost tangible.

I had cultivated a motto within our leadership, “when I am in Africa I am under the leadership of that Director, and we in turn are under the leadership of whichever country coordinator we happen to be visiting.”
It is a great motto. Now it was being tested. I struggled. I wanted a bed. I wanted a solution. I wanted to fix a problem.

My Africa Director approached me. I was hopeful he was going to ask for my opinion, but kept myself quiet. I listened, but I admit that I also waited for a chance to offer my solution. He seemed reluctant to really talk about the situation in other than vague terms. I decided on an indirect approach, mentioning that if someone suggested the idea of a different vehicle, but if there was worry about the cost, that I could help, but also reassured him I trusted his decision.

There was a reluctant pause. “Yes, thank you, but let’s see how our brother (the country coordinator) thinks to handle the matter.”

I did have a faint realization that he was following my motto, and wondered if I liked it so much in reality!

Over the next hour it became clear that the plan was going to be to pile back in the same vehicle and start crawling again. The Africa Director sat next to me and leaned over to explain.

“This driver is married to a relative of our coordinator. This is his vehicle. He feels very embarrassed already and if we arranged something else, he would lose face completely within his own family, and our coordinator might also. I think also, we should not leave the driver here alone, it is a strange place. We are all in this together.”

The decision was made based on core values: honor, sticking together and caring about people more than efficiency. I was grateful I had not blundered into the role of a pragmatic fixer. I was grateful we all were “alongside” each other.

Scene 2

A friend in South Asia, who had been raised all his life in the religion of his people and had for a time been involved with a militant expression of that religion, once asked me, “Do you want to know what caused me to come to faith?” Of course, I was eager to know which of the wise and powerful insights I had shared with him had led him to faith. I paid attention.

“I saw people like you and a few others and I watched how you were as married people and as parents, and I thought, ‘We need this in my people.’”

While I was disappointed that it was not my profound wisdom, I suppose I will always be grateful this brother saw good things in us. And what he saw had to do with our “being”—not our doing.

Scene 3

We have developed a ministry in one religious context who attend shrines in one particular country. This involves visits to the shrines ourselves, lots of prayer, praying for people and also interceding at these places.

On one visit a dear brother, who had been in the Lord for some years, went with us and almost immediately upon entering the shrine was clearly taken under the power of a very strong spiritual evil. We prayed, we took him outside and prayed more. He was completely oblivious to us and continued to pound his head against the floor and ground. It appeared our prayers and commands for the evil one to leave were of no avail.

Eventually he calmed down but it was clear our work was not done. We drove him home and over the six or seven hour journey I was seeking the Lord for how to handle this.

We arrived home and several of us gathered around him for more prayer, in the middle of which I sensed God’s whisper, “He needs to confess.”

I had no problem suggesting this but I was aware enough of the cultural dynamics to know how difficult this would be. “Lord, how do we do this?” I asked.

I can’t say exactly how I knew but I just knew that the best thing to do would be for all of us to confess, starting with me. I opened to the fruits of the Spirit and the deeds of the flesh in Galatians and one by one through both lists I confessed whatever I could see in my own life. One by one we went around the circle, with the last one to confess being the brother we were praying for.

He joined us, confessed to whatever came to him, and almost immediately he was free (and has remained so).

The point of this is not the deliverance, as wonderful as that was. The point is that “being,” “being with,” “being together” and “being alongside” in confession was crucial to this brother receiving God’s work in his life.
Each of the scenes is tied to deep challenges in self-awareness, spiritual dependence, hearing and discerning God’s voice and “being with” or alongside others. This is all crucial to cross-cultural contexts of course, but equally so in our leadership, whether of teams or organizations.

As leaders, we need to be cultivating the same GPS systems in our own lives and leadership that we hope our various organizations and those we lead are producing and encouraging within those we send and within those who are discipled.

Becoming Those Who Can Be Alongside

Near the beginning of this essay I referred to Paul’s opening in Colossians 1:2, in which he writes to “the in-Christ- holy-and-faithful-brothers/sisters-in-Colossae.” This is the united nature of our double identity: in Christ, and in Context. And so I have two convictions:

Conviction 1: we have a tremendous opportunity to plumb the missiological depths of life in Christ.

Conviction 2: we have a tremendous opportunity to plumb the spiritual depths of life in Christ.

I suppose a third conviction might be that the two convictions I just cited are not really two, but deeply linked, one and the same. Regardless, plumbing these depths will position us aright no matter what we may encounter in our voyage forward.

Becoming people who can live alongside in keeping with what I have laid out here requires that we, in our being, become different ourselves. First. Foremost. And that will “catch,” and form people.
Paul is context specific and so must we be. Christ always lives His life in and through real people in real contexts. To be in Him and in our place and time are not two different things. There is no other way to be in Christ.

And if that is true, then “being” and “being alongside” is everything.

Becoming people who can live alongside in keeping with what I have laid out here requires that we, in our being, become different ourselves.

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

“Insider” Movements: How Do They Keep “Right”?

“Insider” Movements: How Do They Keep “Right”?

He was wearing store bought camouflage pants and a white shirt when we left his guest room to join me for a visit to a Scripture study that was primarily involving what most would call “seekers,” members of the majority religion in our area wanting to read the Bible and learn.

This man was exploring a longer-term call to work in this part of the world, and was visiting us as part of his process. He came from Central America, and between his English and less of my Spanish, we did well.

After the study he had lots of questions. His asked about this group, of course, and about the nature of the movement which was, then, still pretty new. There were a number of more fully formed fellowships, with leaders.

At one point he asked, “so who makes sure they don’t get it wrong when they are reading Scripture?” I am afraid I was not at my best and my first reply was simply, “well, who makes sure you don’t?”

Later I gave him a more complete answer. However, while I answered with an emotional tone of frustration, in fact my reply contains some important truths.

Perhaps most important, my reply implies that the same God my friend relies on can also be relied on to guide new movements. No matter what safeguards or processes we may think are good and wise and even needed to assure theological quality control, in the end there is someone else who is not only responsible, but has promised to lead us into truth!

I have over the years become more and more convinced of the reliability of the fact that the Spirit of God will use the Word of God to guide and teach the people of God.

However, having said that, like most things it is not either/or, nor is the fact that something being simple gives us a reason to be simplistic.

I can’t be simplistic about the process: I don’t just point to a Bible and say good luck!

I can’t be simplistic about the aim: the question about making sure a movement doesn’t go wrong implies that we know (and agree) about the exact things to include in the camps of right or wrong. I am not suggesting that moral and doctrinal issues are relative or purely subjective. But we do need a certain level of humility as Christians, and it is good to recall that not all Christians agree on everything, not even on some very important things.1

The question about how movements grow and develop and stay healthy is complex, but it is vital. When people ask me about how a movement can avoid taking wrong turns, I take the question seriously. And I take it seriously with leaders of movements.

This brief article is intended to show how I have approached this. 

How Does It Work in the Bible?

In Acts 15 we find leaders wrestling with a profound question. Gentiles had come to faith, and the Spirit had come upon them (before baptism), and they had not been required to be circumcised, nor were they told this would be needed later. Keep in mind this was not a cultural question: circumcision was a command from God. It was a religious question. It was a theological question. It was  a biblical question.

How did they “get it right?”

They got information from the context: what the Spirit was doing, reports from the field, if you will.

They probed Scripture: some pointed to what Moses had said (which would have meant circumcision); James later turned to citations of the prophets.

They discussed (for a long time, and evidently pretty vigorously!).

Then they decided (as a group of leaders, James said it seemed good to us…).

And then? Then, as we know Paul, took the letter of James and went to declare the decision to the Gentile believers. In the letter was the decision about circumcision and also, among other things, a prohibition about eating meat offered to idols. This was all met with joy.

He kept going, and got to lots of new places, including the city of Corinth. And Corinth became a messy church to say the least! It is likely that Paul wrote three letters, not just the two we have (which may include parts of the third one).

But my main point: when Paul writes 1 Corinthians 8 he addresses the food offered to idols question. He does not cite the Acts 15 event or decision, and does not mention the letter, which supposedly had already decided this issue. And in addition, he does not teach that food offered to idols is wrong (in itself ). He does suggest it depends, it is contextual, and the deciding factor is not the meat, but who I eat it with and whether what I do will harm their conscience.

The issue isn’t spiritual purity, but primarily relational unity and love. But that is not what the Council (including Paul) agreed to in Acts.

What is happening?

The texts and how things unfold, suggest that Paul was continuing to seek the Lord’s mind and will, and continuing to adjust based on new evidence or new situations.

In other words, in addition to the four steps above:

They got information from the context. They probed Scripture. They discussed. Then they decided. There seems to be a fifth, at least for Paul:

He re-evaluated in the light of new information or situations.

How does that help in a movement?

Here is a case.

The issue of polygamy first hit one of the movements I have been most closely involved with in the early 2000s. One of the believer’s parents arranged a second marriage for him and he was unsure what to do.
Some of the leaders asked my opinion and I suggested we see what the Scriptures had to say. We looked at Old Testament examples of men with more than one wife, and we looked at Genesis 2, Ephesians and 1 Timothy 3. The decision made by the leaders then was that it is okay if a believer has more than one wife, but not if he is a leader.

Then we agreed we would keep studying and learning.

Sometime later there was a big earthquake in which many people died. Our leaders were able to share the gospel and do relief work and many people became believers.  However, there were also many widows so the question of marrying more than one wife came up again. We again looked at many of the same Scriptures. But this time we also saw the Old Testament statement that if a man fails to marry his brother’s widow he should be cursed!

It was suggested that it is okay but not for leaders. But then one brother said that perhaps leaders should be setting the example of marrying their brothers’ widows. So for some time this was the idea, but only in that area of the movement.

In 2007 or 2008 we were holding a leader training event. About twenty-five men from different parts of the country were there and we were studying leadership in 1 Timothy. It was not our plan to address polygamy in that meeting, but 1 Timothy 3 brought it to the forefront again.

In the group was an older man, a man who had been a respected religious leader before coming to Jesus (the equivalent in his religious heritage of being a bishop). He was sitting quietly as the others very emotionally argued their different points of view about marriage and polygamy. Finally he simply cleared his throat and everyone became quiet.

He said, “God has a plan A, one man, one wife. We see it in Genesis, in Jesus’ teaching, and in Ephesians and in Timothy. This is Plan A. This needs to be what we teach in our movement. This is what our next generation will follow. I know that some of you are in difficult situations. Maybe you already have more than one wife. Or maybe your other leaders do. Or maybe your parents and relatives will pressure you. God is merciful. This is a difficult time of change. But God’s Plan A is one man and one wife. That is what we will teach and that is what we will try for.”

This process took almost eight years but it has finally stuck. Our leaders are strong on this one.

This illustrates the importance of the five steps, working carefully through a decision and making time to re- evaluate. This process allows new movements to develop their knowledge and application of Scripture. It gives them a process, a habit and experience in using the Bible instead of always depending on an outside expert.

I deeply believe that the Spirit of God will use the Word of God to teach the people of God.

But….
I get mixed reactions when I share this case, and understandably so. For some it is an encouragement that God and the Scriptures and God’s people are together able to steer things in good directions, even if it may take time.
But I also get asked: “Kevin, why didn’t you intervene sooner? Look how long it took. How much difficulty could have been avoided?”

It’s a fair set of questions.

Let’s face it: outsiders exhibit lots of influence whether in insider or other movements and whether we want to or not. But that influence can be helpful, or unhelpful, and can result in growing health of a movement or its leaders, or not.

Had I exerted more influence, it is possible that the final decision about Plan A would have surfaced sooner. It is also possible, I would say probable, that having done so, more leaders would have proceeded to do what they
thought best in spite of that but would have done so secretly. The process we followed allowed for an environment in which leaders could share openly, search Scripture without a pre-decision about what they ought to find, and thus allowed for a movement in which the Scriptures could, did and do, shape things.

But...

finally, was this the right approach? Yes, it is my conviction that this is healthy. But what if I was wrong to wait?

What gives me renewed assurance as I ask this is that even if my approach was wrong in part or in whole, my confidence grows that even so, if I work at keeping people grounded in the conviction that they can expect to receive guidance from the Lord as they search the Scriptures together in the face of tough issues, God will bring them to where they need to be.

The Spirit of God will indeed, and does indeed, use the Word of God to guide, teach and shape the people of God.

Endnotes
  1. Examples: Protestant versus Catholic versions of the canon, free-will and sovereignty, the place of the Spirit and spiritual gifts today, and more.

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

The Next Evolution Of Movement - Catalyst Phased Equipping

24:14 Goal Movement engagements in every unreached people and place by 2025 (58 months)

The Next Evolution Of Movement - Catalyst Phased Equipping

Raising Up New Movement Catalysts for the Harvest

Kingdom Movement models have turned the world of missions among the unreached upside down. Segment by segment, people by people, place by place, movement engagement is realigning expectations back to book-of- Acts proportions. New missionary candidates now wrestle with higher longings for fruitfulness. They are looking for those who can train and mentor them into living out those expectations. The catalyst’s profile is no longer Western, seminary trained and laboring with low expectations. With over 1,300 global book-of-Acts movements starting over the past 25 years and adding nearly 70 million people to God’s family globally, grand expectations for the future don’t seem so far-fetched.

The Concept

Two articles defined a conversation around missionary training: “Training Movement Catalysts,” by Stan Parks (Mission Frontiers, March-April 2016) and “Four Stages to No Place Left In Our Generation,” by Steve Smith (Mission Frontiers, Sept-Oct 2016). Steve and Stan awakened us to a training model based on mentoring rather than classroom training. This phased training approach envisioned a mobilized army of catalyst candidates, readying themselves for the harvest field by training under experienced movement catalysts. Those experienced catalysts would model the methods, assist in practice, watch and give feedback and launch candidates to the next frontier of lostness.

For the past two years, members of the 24:14 community have been tracking with those who have been experimenting with these models. We initially entitled the concept “CPM Training Hubs.” While the concept of phased learning has been gaining momentum, many in our community have eschewed the word “hub” because of its overuse, emphasis on location rather than process and confusion with operational endeavors.

As we started examining God’s work globally, we recognized that His work could be better captured in principle than in structure. As a result, we have starting describing this process as “phased equipping” for CPM catalysts. We refer to the training environments using these principles as Phased Equipping Communities (PEC). This name seems best to use going forward.

We summarize the essential principles as follows.

New movement catalysts need preparation to go to the gaps in unreached peoples and places.

Catalysts are best prepared by a process of training, modeling, personal experience, and coaching with CPM tools rather than simple training in classroom settings with little practice. Practical experience with input and feedback from a coach offers the fastest way to reach effectiveness.

Learning CPM in one’s home environment before moving cross-culturally greatly speeds learning and prepares candidates for greater effectiveness. The most effective catalysts have already served as leaders in a mature movement.

A Vision for PEC Training

Step 1—Promote phased learning regionally in partnership with existing movements, churches and organizations.

Step 2—Describe and document existing phased learning environments to form a network.

Step 3—Resource materials and coaching for those wanting to start phased learning environments.

We see a number of different structures emerge that are true to these principles. They usually follow the phases we have described previously and expand on here:

Phase 1—New movement catalysts are trained in multiplicative movement approaches in their home cultural context. This disciple-making training enables the catalyst to learn evangelism, discipleship, church formation and multiplication through hands-on experience.

Phase 2—In this second phase of training, movement catalysts relocate to a field location in which they adapt to a cross cultural environment and contextualize use of CPM tools in an unreached area. These Phase 2 assignments can take place in a variety of contexts—from catalysts laboring to start a movement to mature movement environments. In any case, the Phase 2 experience is facilitated by leaders with real movement experience.

Successful Phase 2 environments both help candidates discern gifting and fit, and help them catch a vision for unreached peoples and place gaps. The unwavering goal is engaging the remaining unreached peoples and places with a movement effort. At the same time, this Phase 2 process also helps each participant find his or her best place of effectiveness toward that goal.

Catalysts have different training needs, depending on where they originate and where they plan to serve. The needs may include support raising, pastoral care, resiliency, language and culture training, and other topics. Those sponsoring Phased Equipping Communities set up programs to meet these training needs and include these modules in either Phase 1 or Phase 2 learning environments, depending on the organization and the needs of the candidates.

Phase 3—Phase 3 involves new catalysts engaging a new UPG environment. Moving from a Phase 2 environment to a new UPG is often challenging because of the comfort, support, training and development the Phase 2 offers. The emphasis in Phase 3 moves from the community based learning environment of Phase 2 to a remote coaching environment.

Phase 4—This phase involves a maturing movement raising up and sending their own catalytic workers to other UPGs. We see the importance of this phase in the fact that around 80% of global movements are being started by existing movements. Thus assisting these movements in new worker catalyzation is incredibly strategic in reaching the remaining unreached peoples and places.

A Descriptive Matrix

Because of the diversity of these Phased Equipping Communities, describing them generically can be a challenge. The focus of the training process differs with different environmental factors and factors unique to various candidates’ needs for culture and language training. Some communities combine multiple sending organizations and their care networks, while others only work within one organizational context.

Given the number of models being used and the varying situations, how can we describe and evaluate these Phased Equipping Communities? The 24:14 Coalition currently uses a matrix (see below) for leaders to self- describe their Phased Equipping Communities. Others in mobilization networks can then use the matrix score to help identify good places for their candidates to receive training.

The matrix variables include language acquisition, cultural adaptation, CPM methodology training, shepherding (pastoral care), spiritual formation, and next phase transition. We have designed the matrix to give an overall picture of a location’s focal points, irrespective of the community’s environmental requirements.

Leaders of Phased Equipping Communities can also use the matrix to self-evaluate their programs and seek to improve thei process. As we have brought together PEC facilitators, we have often noted “best practices” emerging and leaders learning from one another. At the same time, we found that the principles were not always universally applicable because of the situation in different environments.

Phased Equipping Communities: What We Hope to See

A variety of different models embody these training principles; we plan to examine these in another article. This article mainly aims to explore what training movement catalysts can and should do to promote a phased equipping approach. We offer an invitation to look not at “what we can do,” but “what needs to be done” to finish the 24:14 vision of reaching every unreached people and every global place. We see three steps needed: a way to promote
the growth of phased equipping, a mobilization network, and equipping for those who want to launch these learning environments.

A strategy for equipping and sending new laborers region by region could use a variety of phased equipping models. It could help mobilization networks equip and prepare outsiders to be effective. It could also work with existing churches and networks to train them in movement methods to engage new areas. And it could assist existing movements in sending their catalysts cross culturally.

We want to promote a variety of phased equipping models championed by our community through global meetings, our website, training materials, blog posts and podcasts.

A second goal is to catalog the existence of Phased Equipping Communities globally and provide a way to describe and evaluate them through the matrix. Mobilizers could connect with the 24:14 Coalition to see where PECs exist. They could use general information about the various PEC locations to develop relationships with existing communities that could aid in training their catalysts. Movement leaders can connect with PECs to help them train and launch their own movement catalysts to cross-cultural fields. We anticipate this will assist new movement catalysts in engaging new harvest fields.

24:14 has gathered a number of resources for use by teams and churches who want to start a PEC. With simple curricula using different methodologies, these resources offer multiple options for use in different environments. Teams and churches wanting to use these resources can ask to be connected with another PEC farther along in their journey, creating a web of assistance for those wanting to learn from others.

Final Thoughts

We don’t aim to promote a single model of CPM equipping. Rather promotion of the principles could allow for many effective movement catalysts to go to unreached peoples and places globally. With the 24:14 vision calling for saturation of global districts and UPGs with movement engagements, we need many new laborers for the harvest in the years ahead. Only God can start movements, yet our role includes helping catalysts find ways to quickly become effective practitioners. Phased Equipping Communities offer a pathway to this learning and an important role in the Body of Christ’s completion of the Great Commission.

 

 

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

“Insider” Movements

“Insider” Movements

Dear Reader,

Blessings and welcome to this edition of Mission Frontiers (MF.) In the following set of articles, we are knowingly taking up what continues to be a divisive and controversial topic: insider movements.

I say “we”, but as you will see from the articles, I am the author of the six different pieces we include here. That may need some explanation.

Before I get to that, notice several other articles as well. There are some significant pieces about movements and being a catalyst for movements. While not directly connected to the questions of “insider” movements, the issues discussed there are very relevant.

First, I have been involved with what eventually came to be known as insider movements since the early 1990s. I started writing about them in the late 1990s, and then more regularly after 2000. So, I am an insider to the insider conversation, you might say.

Second, having one author has made it easier to present a number of angles on the topic in an integrative way. I make no claim that I represent all insider movements, or their advocates, or even everyone in Frontier Ventures, but we do offer this edition as an important contribution to an important topic.

Third, I have been involved in the Bridging the Divide (BtD) conversations and meetings since they began just about 10 years ago. I am very grateful for what I have learned in that process from so many colleagues, both fellow advocates and sincere critics. A number of these brief articles will illuminate ways my thinking has changed over the years (this whole enterprise is worth a look, and BtD has a public website at http://btdnetwork.org/).

Fourth, I am the General Director of Frontier Ventures (FV), the organization that publishes MF, and as such I wanted to take this opportunity to articulate things from that seat and for our readers who also follow the progress of our organization. MF is not only a vehicle of Frontier Ventures’ ideas, of course. But since it is one of our channels historically, it seemed fitting to shape this edition around giving an FV voice to these important themes.

Finally, FV has recently completed a process of discernment about how to reshape and re-express our vision and mission for the next phase of our calling. And it seems a good place here to connect that process to these articles about insider movements.

Our vision and mission:

VISION: The fullness of God’s blessing for all peoples and the reconciliation of all things in Christ
MISSION: To nurture new ways for least reached peoples to experience the fullness of life in Jesus

For those who have followed us over the years, this should sound new but yet deeply familiar! And what I have seen in insider movements is a growing number of people experiencing God’s blessing, and experiencing reconciliation, because they are experiencing more and more of the fullness of life in Jesus!

So, six articles from me. And in this column I want to outline the six and show how they fit together:

1. Insider Movements: Should We Still Be Talking About Them? 

Yes and No.  Here I take up the earliest definitions and my latest thinking about what insider movements really are in their essence. Rather than tying them to specific religious expressions, I propose a deeper core: who makes decisions, how, and why?

2. Insider Movements: How Do You Know if You Have One?

I will address topics here that do not only affect how we understand insider movements. The whole question of measuring movements is a vital one, and one we espouse in MF. Look again at the front cover for an example: you will find the latest count of movements among the unreached. How “measurements” are applied in the case of insider movements may be a uniquely challenging question, but it is not totally separate from concerns about any movement.

3. Insider Movements: The Role of Being an Alongsider

Just as new vocabulary emerged to try to explain what was happening in certain contexts, and thus the term “insider” was coined, so too, there is increasing research and conversation about how to talk about the role of the missionary, or worker. The natural option, in the case of insider movements would have seemed to be outsider. But that conveys neither the aspirations of workers nor the reality of how they work.
More and more the term “alongsider” is used and this is my brief attempt to describe that. Again, this is not unique to insider movements. The role of workers in mission in general is important to reconsider.

4. Insider Movements: How Do They Keep “Right”?

In this article I take up the concern people feel about how to assure that insider movements do not deviate into syncretism and false teaching. Yet again: a concern that is true for any movement, and indeed for us in the west (and us individually by the way). What I will share here in fact should help us all, I would hope. I have used the model presented there in church settings in the USA to solve questions as well.

5. Insider Movements: Where Does This End Up?

Typically, conversations about insider movements focus, rightly, on the past history, development, and present dynamics of a given movement. However, it is important to ask about their future trajectories. And here I describe, not prescribe, three main “futures” as those have been described to me by various insider movement leaders.

6. Insider Movements: Common Concerns

No discussion of insider movements is fully complete without attempting to address some of the more common questions and concerns. My contribution is not comprehensive, but I hope it helps clarify and explain some concerns.
Conclusion, and Next

As I close, a few comments about the approach here, and about the future.

First, given the wide distribution of MF, I have tried to remove references that would make an observation specific to a particular region, country, people group or religious heritage. As such, the “feel” may be generic and not specific or incarnate. But be assured I am writing about and from experience with actual people, actual movements and real issues.

Second, the future. I feel keenly that three of the biggest looming missiological, theological and biblical questions for the mission movement to address as we move into a next era of mission, are all issues which have been clarified and surfaced in the process of addressing the insider movement controversies. I am not suggesting no one asked these before or saw them before, of course, but the insider movement debate and reality has caused some of us to begin to ask about these three issues in new ways, and to ask new questions about them. While there is not space to address them deeply here, the articles in this edition of MF will cause some readers to wonder about them. The three are:

What is church?

What in its essence is community in Jesus, and what is the interplay between this communal reality and the communal reality of one’s birth religion?

What is religion?

What is the relationship of religion, culture, humanity? How do religious identity and living in Christ impact each other?

What is a missionary?

What are we learning and discovering about the qualities and character needed in people called to serve cross- culturally in mission, no matter where they come from, or where or to whom they go?
I believe these things are imbedded, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly, throughout this edition of MF. But they will be looming larger and larger in the mission movement, and in Frontier Ventures as we seek to follow Jesus into the coming next years.

May what we do and who we are result in the fullness of His blessing for all the families and peoples of the earth.

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

The Kingdom Is Continually Breaking Free of Christendom

The Kingdom Is Continually Breaking Free of Christendom

In Hawaii we visited a volcano famous for its red-hot streams of flowing lava. As soon as the hot lava hits the air, it cools rapidly, forming black crusts so hard it can be walked on while molten rock flows inside. But the heat and pressure builds relentlessly until the powerful sizzling red lava breaks unexpectedly out of its casing here or there, forcing its way to the ocean.

When I saw it, I was reminded of the history of God’s kingdom on earth. When Jesus announced the coming of God’s kingdom, He revealed the coming of a powerful movement of God that has worked its way relentlessly around the world ever since.

First it burst the bounds of Judaism, shocking the disciples who expected the Messiah’s kingdom to overthrow the Romans and re-establish the rule of their people. Instead, it burst out of the hardened strictures of Mosaic Law, bringing its transforming power into the Greco-Roman world—toppling no governments, except those ruling people’s hearts.

Paul called this amazing move of God into the Gentile world “the mystery of the gospel,” hidden in prophetic writings but revealed in his day. Peter exclaimed, “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear Him and do what is right!” (Acts 10:34)

In the first century, the kingdom of God broke out in unexpected places, from Rome to Ethiopia to Persia to India. As each expression of the kingdom of God took form and hardened into casings created by mankind, the movement would slowly grind to a halt.

But, as Jesus predicted, the power of God is not so easily tamed and contained. While the Roman believers co-opted their empire’s government structure and cultural strengths to organize and try to manage this phenomenon, God was establishing His kingdom in Celtic Ireland, far from their control— through a former slave boy! Meanwhile, the blacklisted Nestorian believers carried the message of the coming of God’s kingdom as far as China.

Far from being a history of God establishing His kingdom through man-made ecclesiastical structures, we find the living power of Jesus has not ever been effectively contained by the best efforts of His followers. The invention of the printing press ripped the Bible itself from their control, producing a red-hot reformation complete with the radical reaffirmation that through Jesus all believers are priests with direct access to God. Do we still believe this?

Modern transportation and internet communication have broken down the last barriers isolating people groups from this amazingly good news. And we are finding that once again God’s kingdom is refusing to be limited to “Christianity-as-we-know-it”! 

It is our turn to be shocked, like Peter, that God would bestow His Spirit on those outside of our acceptable religion. It was inconceivable to him that pagan households, like Cornelius’, could receive God’s Holy Spirit (even while uncircumcised and as yet unbaptized!). Likewise, we cannot fathom that God would have “no favorites” today and bestow His Spirit on Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and, in fact, all who through meeting a living Jesus “fear Him and do what is right.” But His kingdom is breaking out of the boxes we try to keep it in, again, and He seems to be inviting the least-expected people to His banquet, without our permission.

Indeed, once again God is doing the scarily unexpected. But will we perceive it?

Jesus is alive and building His own kingdom in the hearts of people in many religious contexts. Just like in the New Testament, He does not seem to be concerned that religious structures or forms be established in His
name. Once again, He has bypassed the competition between religions to go straight to the hearts of all people everywhere who are seeking to truly know God.

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

What’s in Your Box?

What’s in Your Box?

Are we all heretics at Frontier Ventures for talking about Insider Movements in this issue of Mission Frontiers? Some people have said that to me in years past. What is it about Insider Movements that is so controversial and makes so many people in the church and mission world uncomfortable? Is it simply the fear of syncretism or is something else going on?

You Can’t Judge a Box By Its Label

I think some of the problem comes down to the fact that as human beings we like clear categories and definitive boxes with bold labels to put things and people into. We do not like being forced to deal with the gray areas where people don’t fit easily into neat categories or boxes.

The reality is that regardless of the label we put on the box, we are always going to have variations of what is in the box. Most people would assume that people in the box labeled “Christian” are followers of Jesus vs. something else like Muslim or Buddhist and they would generally be correct. But within every Christian box there will be an amalgam of faithful followers of Jesus and merely cultural adherents. It is a mixed box. In fact, Barna Research has reported that only around 19% of self-described “born again believers” hold to basic sound doctrine such as the deity of Christ and His atoning work on the cross. In every church, no matter how good, there will be a mixture of faithful followers of Jesus and unbelievers. The parable of the wheat and tares illustrates this reality.

Applying this to Insider Movements, we can see the difficulties that can arise in trusting the label on the box. The box says “Muslim” which, like many boxes labeled “Christian,” includes both faithful and cultural adherents. With Insider Movements the Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist boxes will also include those who are biblically faithful and obedient followers of Jesus and yet they continue to associate, to varying degrees, with others from their birth religion, even though they are very different in terms of their core beliefs. The box labeled “Muslim” like other boxes with Christian labels becomes very much of a mixed box. We really can’t assume that everyone in the box truly represents fidelity to the label on the box.

Many in the Christian sphere want anyone who comes from a Muslim or other religious background to jump immediately into the box labeled “Christian,” even though this would lead to tremendous upheaval in the family and community, making it much more difficult for the gospel to spread among this people group. Often times when someone does jump into the Christian box from a Muslim or other religious background, those already in that box never truly accept this person as a full member of that box. Is that person a spy? How can we truly trust them considering where they came from? The truth is that a person in the box labeled “Muslim” has the potential to be a more faithful and obedient follower of Jesus than someone in the “Christian” box because each box is a mixture of beliefs, regardless of the label on the box. This is hard for many to get their heads around because we like to believe the labels on the box. This illustrates the complexity of the missionary task. No matter what box we are born into, Jesus calls us to follow Him and that means that all faithful followers of Jesus must critique and reject anything in that box that is not biblical. To fail to do so means we are not faithfully following Jesus.

What is Our Mission?

All of this raises the question, “What is the missionary task of the Church anyway”? Is it to go around the world and make converts who look and act like the believers in our local churches? Or is it to make obedient disciples of Jesus where the gospel becomes indigenous (normal and natural, not foreign) to every tribe and tongue? If the latter is the mission of the Church, then the believers in Jesus and the churches they form are going to look very different from our local churches and from every other church within every other people group. Are we okay with that?

Because if believers in the West who support missions want our missionaries to establish believers and churches that look like our local church, then we are going to have three problems. 1) The gospel will not become indigenous to the people we are trying to reach. The gospel will appear to be a foreign import and rejected. 2) We will only reach a very limited group of people who don’t mind being an outcast from their family and community. 3) We will never see a movement of people coming to Jesus from that people group. Some degree of contextualization of the gospel is essential for a movement to take place—even in non-Insider Movements.

In the early days of the modern protestant missionary movement, mission workers thought it was a good idea to bring their culture along with the gospel. The mission worker’s church back home became the model for these new believers to imitate. They would teach them to sing the same hymns from the hymnal the missionary brought from back home. They might build a church building that looked just like something from their home culture. The
men and women would start dressing like Europeans or Americans—the men in suits and ties, the women in long dresses. We can see this happening to this day in various parts of the world. Is that our mission? Is this what Jesus has called us to do—to go around the world and make every tribe and tongue look and act like us? I don’t think so. Whether we are talking about Kingdom Movements or Insider Movements, it is all about the people we are attempting to reach being in control of the process of making disciples and planting churches, not the outsiders. In fact our role is to rid the gospel of as much of our cultural baggage as possible so the gospel can look like really great news to every people and nation. That is a mission worth giving our full effort to.

Support the Work of Mission Frontiers

As is the case with most publications, Mission Frontiers cannot cover its costs from subscriptions alone. We need additional funds from those who believe in this ministry and are willing to sacrifice to help us move forward in casting vision for Kingdom Movements in all peoples. Like most of the people who work for Frontier Ventures, my salary is supplied by the donations of churches and friends who believe in what I am doing. And also like many staff members at Frontier Ventures, there are many months when not enough comes in to fully cover our allotted salary. To donate to my ministry with MF go to http://www.frontierventures.org click, on the Donate button and put MA 323 in the dialog box. If you would like to help MF cover its general expenses and expand its influence, go to the same web address given above, click on the Donate button and put MA 030 in the dialog box. We greatly appreciate whatever you can do to help Mission Frontiers and Frontier Ventures continue its work to see Kingdom Movements emerge in all peoples.

 

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

“Insider” Movements: Should We Still Be Talking About Them? Yes and No

“Insider” Movements: Should We Still Be Talking About Them? Yes and No

I am fond of saying that we are in the midst of a “movement movement.” It seems everyone in the world of missions is talking about movements. Books and articles abound, and conferences, training, and reports of movements proliferate. Thankfully this is because there are movements to talk about!

This is an unprecedented time of movement growth and multiplication. This is in part why Mission Frontiers has been including reports of movements and discussions of movements as a central theme every time we publish, no matter what the stated topic of a given edition.

There Are Movements, and Then There are Movements

The concept is not new, in some ways. The observation and study of large numbers of people turning to Jesus led to the descriptions of “people movements” by forerunners such as Waskom Pickett and Donald McGavran. More recently we tend to speak about, and hear more and more about Church Planting Movements, or CPMs, and Disciple Making Movements, or DMMs.1

The celebrations of movements does not mean there have been no questions, and CPMs and DMMs have garnered their share of critique. But of all the types of movements being discussed today, “insider movements”, or IMs, have certainly attracted the most attention in terms of critique.

CPMs, DMMs, and IMs all share a lot in common, including: the conviction that all believers in Jesus will be drawn into deep level change and transformation; the importance of a believing community in shaping the life of believers; the centrality and singularity of Jesus as the way of salvation; the central place of the Scriptures in shaping life-faith-doctrine-moral values-practices.

The main difference between IMs and other movements has to do with how believers in a movement understand their new identity in Jesus relative to the religious community of their birth, and more specifically, how they navigate the religious elements of their socio-religious heritages (events, practices, etc.).

In every movement, including insider movements, believers say yes to some aspects, and no to others. Advocates and leaders of insider movements have tended to a posture that has allowed more “yeses” than non-insider advocates and leaders.

My Thinking: 2004

In 2004 I outlined this definition of insider movements. Note that this was still very early in the emergence of the whole idea:

Insider Movement: A growing number of families, individuals, clans and/or friendship-webs becoming faithful disciples of Jesus within the culture of their people group, including their religious culture. This faithful discipleship will express itself in culturally appropriate communities of believers who will also continue to live within as much of their culture, including the religious life of the culture, as is biblically faithful. The Holy Spirit, through the Word and through His people will also begin to transform His people and their culture, religious life and worldview.2

Five years later, Becky Lewis wrote a similar definition:

Insider movements can be defined as movements to obedient faith in Christ that remain integrated with or inside their natural community. In any insider movement there are two distinct elements:

1. The gospel takes root within pre-existing communities or social networks, which become the main expression of “church” in that context. Believers are not gathered from diverse social networks to create a “church.” New parallel social structures are not invented or introduced.

2. Believers retain their identity as members of their socio-religious community while living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible.

The ongoing link to one’s birth religion that both of the above definitions refer to has been the primary source of friction and questioning about IMs. The question often boils down to something like, “how do IMs avoid heresy?”
In another article in this edition, I will take up the question of how IMs, indeed how any movement, is shaped and influenced by ongoing engagement with Scripture and how the Spirit and Word can serve as a sort of spiritual and theological GPS.

For now, I want to turn to a different lens through which I have begun to understand IMs.

My Thinking Now: 2021

My own thinking has continued to evolve. And while I still stand by the definitions that I, and later, Becky Lewis, have published, and still affirm what God is doing in IMs, I have come to rethink what it is that is distinctly the core.
What are the essential elements that make this or that movement “IM” versus some other type of “M”? Is it really the religious element?
I began to think about movements such as the rapid explosion of believers in Iran, believers who in general want nothing to do with Shia roots and religion. The realization came to me that this movement is still “inside” a socio- religious background.

In this case, many (not all) believers who are coming to faith in Jesus seem to be doing so after having already embraced a shift in world view relative to Islam, in many cases prior to coming to Jesus. If “insider” were to be defined and limited to only specific and narrow categories of religious practices (for example), then we would miss the essential “inside-ness” of a growing and exciting move of God. No one suggests that the believers in Iran should go back to Shia Islam but they weren’t “in” that when they came to faith in the first place. It was in many cases already behind them.

This includes the post-Shia-Iranian-socio-religious-reality they were part of before meeting Jesus. They are in many ways still “in” that, even as their faith, heart, relationships and worldview all continue to be shaped in Scripture and community. That is, they are part of an insider movement.

I am now convinced that the deepest markers of whether a movement is an “insider” movement or not are not the questions about the socio-religious decisions themselves. Such decisions are results of something deeper, results of decisions “insiders” may make, and so the crucial questions are ones such as:

Who makes decisions in the movement?

How do they make them?

Why do they make them?

So: Still Talk About Insider Movements? Yes

So, it is important to keep talking and probing “IM”. In line with that, here is what I am thinking about those three questions.

Who?

I am not ignoring the vital role of what we might more and more refer to as “alongsiders” (see the article about that in this edition of MF). But at the end of the day, what matters, what I believe makes a movement an insider movement, is that the movement itself, its leaders and fellowships, make the decisions.

How?

In a later article in this edition I describe my conviction that the Spirit of God uses the Word of God to shape and teach the people of God. It is a simple, but not simplistic, way to speak. Healthy movements make decisions through engagement with Scripture that is ongoing, communal, corrective, and closely interacting with the questions and challenges of the context the movement is in, as opposed to the priorities and preferences of an outsider/alongsider.

Why?

There are and will be many ways to answer why a decision is made, including motives such as wanting to get “truth” right. But also important will be questions about how this or that decision may allow for the good news to continue to flow most freely, without compromising its essence. The controversy in Acts 15 for example,was about how to decide what was right, including what was right Scripturally, and how to keep from placing unnecessary burdens on the emerging Gentile movement. The Scriptural wrestling, for example, was between what the Law of Moses said (cited by those saying the Gentile believers needed to be circumcised), and what James found in several of the prophets. And we see the concern about burdens in the letter that James and others drafted for communicating their decision.This focus on who and how and why is a different way of speaking of “insider movements.” It is a development that still needs more discussion. I am not claiming all advocates will agree with me. And all of that suggests that, yes, we need to keep talking about insider movements.

So: Still Talk About Insider Movements? No

And yet, it may also be time to stop. I will give just two reasons for this, for now.

The first reason is that the term has never felt right, frankly. The term, not the concept itself, smacks of secrecy, isolation and even something less than honest or above board (for more about misunderstandings of the concept see the article in this edition about common concerns).

The second and more important reason is related to new thinking arising from non-western advocates and leaders and missiologists.

In 2017 a number of Asian and western men and women gathered to consider the topic of movements, and specifically to try to imagine new language for movements—language more rooted in biblical concepts.

Specifically, we were concerned to find new words for “Church Planting Movement” and “missionary” and “missiology.” Using the insights from the call of Abraham in Genesis 12, and references to blessing in Ephesians as well as other papers and conversations, we experimented with things like, “family blessing movements,” and probably much less likely to stick, terms like “blessionary,” and “blessiology.”

But we agreed that we need new language.

FBMs? Family Blessing Movements?

Earlier in this article I cited Becky Lewis’ definition of IMs and her mention of remaining within pre-existing social structures. This assumes or includes the idea that “church-planting” is essentially planting churches within those existing structures, as opposed to the creation of new social structures we then call “churches.”

The social structure that more and more movement advocates promote, IM and CPM, and DMM alike, is the household. The oikos, or extended household of the New Testament has universal expression in one form or another in every culture and society. More or less nuclear? Yes, but present. Extended to aunts and uncles or not? Good question, but the concept is still present—and so on.

And given that the promise to Abraham involved the families of the earth, and the promise of God’s blessing for them, perhaps “family blessing movement,” as clunky as it may be, captures something that all sorts of movement advocates can rally to, whether CPM, DMM, or IM.

Endnotes
  1. Though writing before the advent of widely known “DMM” models, Becky Lewis’ discussion of the ways people movements and CPM differ is very helpful, as is her description of IM. Insider Movements: Honoring God-Given Identity and Community, International
    Journal of Frontier Missiology, 26:1, Spring 2009, p. 16ff.

  2. The Key to Insider Movements: The “Devoted’s” of Acts, International Journal of Frontier Missiology, 21:4, Winter 2004, p. 155ff.

  3. In IJFM, 26:1, Spring 2009, p. 16ff.

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

“Insider” Movements: Where Does This End Up?

“Insider” Movements: Where Does This End Up?

It has become more and more common in my experience for people who have questions and concerns to arrive at a point where they can see a space for insider movements, and for individuals or small groups of believers to remain “inside” as a stage of their journey, with the assumption that at some point a break will need to be made and should be encouraged.

And so, in this article I want to raise the question about the long-term future, vision, and hopes for insider movements.

I have my own thoughts on this, but ultimately what matters will be the answers that leaders of various movements give, and what their fellow leaders see and understand and discern. Within the circles I am aware of and the leaders I relate to there are really three ways different leaders see the future of the movements they are part of.

Critical Mass, and then Separate as Christians

There are some I know who hope their movements can stay within their religious communities, accepted as such, until the movements are large enough to step out, or more likely, be persecuted out. At that point they would be able to stand and perhaps be too big for large scale persecution.

Let me hasten to say that none of the movements I know of are able to fully avoid persecution at present, or ever. As vocal witnesses for Jesus, our brothers and sisters face rejection, abuse, and some have been martyred.

However, the hope of such leaders I would see in this category is that their movement’s numbers would become big enough eventually to survive as a more overtly Christian movement. They imagine this outside of their religious heritages, but not tied to current denominations explicitly. More on that later!

I know of one such movement personally. It began as very much an “insider” movement in the older sense, meaning that believers maintained religious forms, rethought how the holy books and traditions of their people could be understood or re-understood in the light of Jesus, etc. But at some stage along the line, as they continued in Scripture and in conversation with alongsider friends,1 they determined that God’s preferred plan for them

was going to include getting to a point of critical mass in terms of size, and then separating from their birth community’s religion in more fundamental ways.

Yeast in the Dough

This is the viewpoint of leaders of movements who sincerely believe that their version of adhering to the religion they were born in, now shaped by Jesus and the Bible, is in fact the truth; the true way not only to be a disciple of Jesus but the true way to adhere to their religion.

This conviction has emerged as these leaders have continued in Scripture and in conversation with alongsider friends.

This is the version of “insiderness” that has most typically been the focus of the controversies and debates among Christians and mission workers. It has been the most hotly disputed. But as I am trying to point out, it is not the only position taken by leaders of insider movements.

Wheat and Tares

In some ways this category is a bit of a hybrid between the first two. The leaders I am thinking of want very much to stay inside. But they are aware that the likelihood of ever getting to the size and influence needed to change their religion itself from the inside is slim to impossible.

They are realistic that it is very likely that eventually sometime soon that they will be targeted by the majority and persecuted more overtly and consistently than at present. 

They know that, although they can articulate their understanding of what they see as the true version of the birth religion, in a way that matches their faith in Jesus and the Scriptures, the reality is that others will not, and will eventually see them as heretical at best, apostate more likely, and seek to persecute them into extinction.

Thus, this group has expressed their hope that their movements can become large enough to have critical mass to survive beyond their ability to remain accepted by the majority community.

In that element they share the hope or expectation of the first example I gave.

But, their expectation is to be persecuted out as an unacceptable version of what it means to be an adherent of whatever their birth religion may have been, which is what they would still claim to be (an adherent, though one who follows Jesus and the Bible).

In that element they share the aspirations of the “Yeast in the Dough” example.

As with the other two, this conviction has emerged as these leaders again have continued in Scripture and in conversation with alongsider friends.

Implications?

First, it has probably become obvious from the previous that there is a common thread for how the future is being determined in these movements. Or a thread with two strands, the first of which is: continuing in Scripture.
Elsewhere in this edition I talk about the importance of continued Scriptural input and digging, and I refer the reader there. Suffice it to say here that when I say that Scripture will help leaders make these decisions, I am not suggesting a simplistic view of pointing to the Bible and leaving people on their own or proof-texting, etc.

Second, in the second strand in the thread I just mentioned there is the question of the role of alongsider friends in determining future directions. One of the criticisms leveled at advocates of insider movements is that we are really the ones shaping them, that without our input and influence they would be very different.

My response would be: undoubtedly true. And I would add, this is true of the role and influence of outsiders in any sort of movement. The question then should be, what sort of influence is best or right?

I will answer that here by making a simple observation. The three types of future I describe above have in common that insider leaders are turning to Scripture. They also have in common that they have had input from the same alongsider: myself.

As such, the point I want to make is that alongsiders can serve and help movement leaders without necessarily putting the stamp of the alongsider’s preferences on a movement. That does happen of course. But it is also possible for the role of the alongsider to be that of helping leaders use Scripture in healthy ways to come to their own decisions and visions.

Third, I want to highlight something just stated about these decisions. It has been said but is important to repeat: they are all made by the leaders themselves. They go in different directions but the leaders are making these decisions (elsewhere in MF I talk about this factor as one of the three defining marks of “insider movements”).

I repeat that here in part to prepare for the fourth comment.

And that fourth comment is that the same leaders who arrived at such different conclusions are not only connected by the same alongsider, but they are in fellowship with each other. They meet, they share, they talk, they study Scripture together, they pray, they know that they differ, and they sometimes question each others’ wisdom. But they are committed to each other.

Something We Can Learn?

And that last point suggests to me that perhaps we can learn some things from insider movements. Yes there are questions. Yes there are concerns. But, at least in the instances I have shared here, we can at a minimum learn and be encouraged to pursue a deeper sort of unity than mere agreement.

In Romans 14 and 15 Paul writes to encourage the Romans to respect the sincere differences held by brothers and sisters among them. These were not merely issues of preferences or culture. They were divided over what their consciences dictated to them about religious issues of food and specific days of observance. These were religious matters. And Paul’s advice on these was to pursue a more difficult and challenging type of unity than uniformity and agreement.

Paul believed they could rise to the maturity needed to be able to remain in unity while disagreeing profoundly. His foundational principle was that the kingdom’s essence was in “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Rom. 14:17) May we all be marked by such maturity, and may these three foundations be strong among us!

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

Becoming the Kind of Person God Can Use to Launch Movements— Part 2

Becoming the Kind of Person God Can Use to Launch Movements— Part 2

The Apostle Paul exhorted the Galatian church to walk in freedom. The young church had been infiltrated by Judaizers who wanted everyone to be circumcised.

In Galatians 5:4, Paul writes, “You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”

As humans, we like to be doers. Church-planters and Disciple Making Movement practitioners want to do things right. We are always learning, searching, reading and talking to people about what is the most effective strategy or fruitful practice we can use to bring the maximum number of people into the kingdom as quickly as possible.

There is nothing wrong with this. In many ways, it is good. The millions of unreached peoples will never become faithful Jesus followers without hard work, realignment to New Testament methods and the embracing strategies for multiplication. We must do, and do a lot.

In the midst of this, it’s easy though to lose sight of other things just as vital, like the importance of being the kind of people who reflect Christ to a hurting world. We sometimes focus so much on doing that we fall away from grace and are “alienated from Christ.” No longer do we resemble Him—His goodness, His kindness, His compassion, or fervor for His Father’s will. It is possible to do everything right as far as a strategy but fall short in our personal transformation. God rarely entrusts His greater fruit to those who ignore the importance of being as well as doing. It is our Christlikeness that attracts unbelievers to consider our message. Our character, as we imitate Christ, is the foundation a movement is built on.

In Part 1, (see Mission Frontiers Jan–Feb 2021) I wrote about six characteristics of the kind of person God can use greatly. If you missed this first part, please take the time to read it.

The first six characteristics:

1)   They have an ever-growing relationship with God and an extraordinary prayer life.

2)   They are bold and faithful in witness.

3)   They are willing to face persecution from enemies.

4)   They are willing to be misunderstood by friends.

5)   They innovate, evaluate and change.

6)   They are willing to stop doing unfruitful activities and focus on a few high impact things.

This list is not exhaustive. Here in Part 2, we will consider six additional characteristics of those God entrusts with His great work of releasing movements. As you read these, take time to ponder. Discuss the questions with your team or spouse. Journal about them. Allow the Holy Spirit to stir within you a fresh longing to grow in these areas.

7. They are filled with God’s Spirit and Word.

Because these leaders have extraordinary prayer lives (see #1, Part 1), they drink deeply of God each day and throughout the day. Abiding in Him has become a way of life. Regular meditation on Scripture is a habit that brings a fullness of the Word deep within. This naturally overflows from their hearts as well as their lips as they disciple, train and share the good news.

In tune with the Spirit of God and full of His presence, they follow God’s leading in both big and small decisions. Heightened sensitivity to what He is doing is apparent. They have their “spiritual antennas” up and are sensing listening and aware of God’s work around them. Responding to His nudges, they obey and flow with God.

The power of God’s Spirit works through them. Signs, wonders, and miracles are the natural result of a life lived in deep dependence upon the Holy Spirit.

8. They persevere through times of suffering, loss and spiritual deserts.

Perseverance in hardship is a common characteristic of movement leaders. This can be observed in the life of Jesus, Paul and the apostles, as well as the early church fathers. An imbalanced theology says if we love and follow God our lives will be easy. This false teaching has crept into the church in many parts of the world.

Jesus was tempted in the wilderness for 40 days. His close friend and cousin, John the Baptist, was murdered unjustly. The Lord suffered and died. Paul was beaten, stoned and imprisoned. Peter was crucified upside-down. Hardship is part of the pathway toward the release of greater kingdom fruit.

The movement leaders God uses greatly will experience suffering. Spouses or children may fall sick or even die. Grief is not a stranger to these leaders. Many experience seasons of spiritual dryness, or what might be called a Dark Night of the Soul. In all these challenges, they refuse to quit on God or His calling for their lives. The vision the Father has placed within them compels them to continue. They share the gospel with one more person, even when no one seems to listen. They choose to once again trust and develop leaders under them, even when betrayed by those they mentored in the past. These leaders continue, despite deep personal pain.

In Matthew 14, John the Baptist was beheaded. Verse 13 says that when Jesus heard this He withdrew, but the crowds followed him. He had compassion on them and healed their sick, then fed the five thousand. Despite a great personal loss, He continued in the ministry God had given Him, loving and serving the multitudes.

9. They have a strong faith in the God of the impossible.

Movement leaders must have unshakable confidence in God’s power to do what they cannot. They have a lowly opinion of themselves, but an incredibly strong belief that God can and will come through to fulfill His promise.
These leaders have tested and seen Him be the one who works miracles.

Like David, they started by taking on smaller challenges- lions and bears. This gives them faith to believe God can slay giants. They are willing to ask God for great things because they experientially know their God to be a God of great power and might.

Their trust is in God and His Word, not in what they see or in past experiences. As a result, they regularly take risks of faith to boldly ask God for the miraculous.

10. They are continually releasing power and responsibility to others.

These leaders are not hungry to be on stage in front of adoring crowds. Instead, they embrace the joy of developing others. As a result, God places key Timothys in their lives to encourage and train.
They believe in “rough diamonds” and are willing to work with people, shaping their ministry philosophy, modeling, praying and investing in them until they become the kind of people God uses greatly. Their relationships with those they coach or mentor go deep, far beyond a weekly meeting. Sharing life, they stand by them, fight for them. They are more than happy to stand in the background while those they’ve trained take the front.
This willingness to stay in the shadow and develop others is key to seeing a movement grow. These leaders don’t care about becoming a big name or personality. Instead, they want only to see every disciple grow and develop in their gifts and strengths to be all God intends them to be as disciple-makers and leaders in their realm of influence. This means sacrificing personal fame and gain to invest in others and see them succeed.

11. They are kingdom, not organizationally minded.

Similarly, they are not consumed with building their denomination, organization or team into a successful entity.

They generously share what God has taught them with others. Even with those outside their network. This mindset causes them to collaborate and partner with other DMM practitioners often.
Wanting to see your denomination or organization become known and be respected is a powerful human tendency. We all want to be attached to something that experiences success.
The kind of movement leaders and catalysts God uses have died to this fleshly desire and continue to die daily. They champion and value the fruitfulness of others, above their group. Philippians 2:3 says “consider others as more important than ourselves.” These leaders practice this in their lives and ministry plans. Because of this kingdom mindset, God adds to them freely.

12. They walk in an ever-growing humility.

Like Paul, movement leaders God uses must be aware of their weaknesses. They count their accomplishments as immaterial. (2 Cor. 11:30) Glory goes to God when things go right, yet they take responsibility for their own mistakes.
Humility is the final characteristic in my list because it is one of the most important. It is also one that takes time to develop. Humility doesn’t grow in us quickly. It’s rarely found in the young who have not yet walked through great pain, failure or hardship.

Pride and insecurity are common to all. Two sides of the same coin and if you are a living, breathing human, you will battle these. When we fail, we wonder if we are worthy to be used by God. We swing toward insecurity. In times of success, we tend to think we are better than others, and pride rears its ugly head.

Humility is shaped within through the times when we are hurled to our knees by life. We desperately cry out to God for help and wisdom. At the end of ourselves, we know that unless God intervenes we are in deep trouble. His life is being formed within us.

Giants, Mountains, and Immovable Obstacles

Our faith in God’s mighty power and our love for the lost leads us to ask Him for great fruit. As we pursue our God- sized dreams for many more movements we will encounter giants, mountains and seemingly immovable obstacles. These challenges grow us in humility, and many of the other characteristics I’ve mentioned in this two-part series.

Don’t despise the giants. Don’t despair when climbing a great mountain, far bigger than yourself. The immovable obstacles are training you. They are shaping your character into the kind of person God can use to bring about His incredible kingdom purposes.

Success Will Tempt You, But God Will Help You

Great fruitfulness will tempt you to take glory for yourself. You suddenly face the opportunity to build your name or kingdom. You can raise money, make a name for yourself, have material blessings or build a grand building. Beware. The choices you make at the height of fruitfulness will determine whether the movement grows far beyond you, or stops in its tracks.

God has plans for your future and mine far beyond what we can imagine. His work on earth is not yet complete. Millions wait to hear. Will we become the kind of people He can use greatly?

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

“Insider” Movements: Common Concerns

“Insider” Movements: Common Concerns

Rather than making my own list of frequently asked questions or concerns, I want to allow those to emerge from someone actually asking them.

In the spring of 2019 I reviewed the article City Under a Hill: 5 Problems with Insider Movements by Travis Myers (Professor, Bethlehem College & Seminary). The article is available here: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/a- city-under-a-hill.

I will primarily use the outline of the five points he raises, however I begin from one of his major subtitles near the beginning of his paper, When the Gospel Hides.

By highlighting this comment and framing it as a major section of his paper he tips his hand to an assumption he is making about insider movements: they are secretive and hiding the gospel. This is of course hinted at in his title as well (city under a hill).

While I welcome questions about insider movements and feel the discussions are a healthy process, I find responding to this idea that insider brothers and sisters are hiding their faith is just covering old territory in the long discussions about IM. The claim that insider movements are secretive or silent or don’t share their faith is a claim as old as the discussion itself (back to at least 2004). This has been frequently rebutted, and the number of followers of Jesus, insiders, who face persecution and death because of their faith is also witness to the erroneous nature of this straw man argument. 

Does every “insider” believer stand boldly? Certainly not. Does every Christian living in countries hostile to their faith do so? Does every Christian in the USA?

Of course not.

The real question then is what do godly leaders in such contexts teach and encourage their people to do? In the case of insider movements, the expectation is that disciples of Jesus make other disciples of Jesus. They share their faith and they bear witness.

They do not hide the gospel.

Now to Myers’ five points. I use his terms, and each of the five is followed by a direct quotation from Myers’ article.

Hermeneutics

"IM is predicated on the misguided idea that faith in Jesus as Lord of one’s life can “complete” and be the apex of any religious tradition or religious identity.”

First, IM is not predicated on this point. Not every IM proponent even holds this position, and in fact, if fulfillment thinking is not true it would not change anything. IM practice or approaches or principles are not dependent on this theme. IM is predicated on many other biblical principles and passages. The literature is full on this point.

Second, IM proponents have not made the case that Jesus fulfills other religions, certainly not in the way that He fulfills the Old Testament.

The contention I would make is that Jesus does fulfill a number of dimensions of anyone’s cultural and religious background, or hopes and aspirations, when a person comes to faith.

At the same time, it is frequently the case that in Jesus people can and do see a number of beautiful aspects of their heritage, including their religious heritage, which now seem to find a new fullness and beauty in Jesus.
But the argument which assumes IM bases itself in fulfillment thinking is a generalization and inaccurate.

Integrity and Identity

“Core Islamic doctrine explicitly denies biblical doctrines that are central, and essential, to Christian faith.”

Myers is concerned here especially with Muslim contexts. I will try to respond more generically. It is true that official teaching of major non-Christian religious traditions run counter to, or in tension with, or deny outright biblical doctrines that are essential. No argument on this point has ever been put forward by any insider advocate or insider movement leader with whom I have worked.

There are some insider believers who follow Jesus (not all, but a number whom I know) who do argue that on the basis of the foundational texts of their own religious heritage, and in deeper study of the Bible, a number of core teachings in their religious traditions as typically taught are incorrect. They seek to reform those understandings, including whatever their birth religion may teach about Jesus, the Bible, salvation and more.

This is not at all the same thing as suggesting that their birth religion does not teach incorrect things. But at least some insider leaders argue, from the inside, that those teachings are wrong, and that they need to be corrected.

Discipleship

“The IM approach stunts Christian discipleship and spiritual growth.”

I am guessing, perhaps wrongly, that Myers has not met insiders personally or directly. His conclusions certainly seem to indicate this. Perhaps an underlying question here really is, “what are IM movements doing about these issues?” Or perhaps, “how do they disciple believers?”

The movements I have known and been involved with are all rooted in ongoing inductive study of whole books of the Bible in community. Also, I increasingly see leaders focused on reflection on the doctrinal history and themes Christ’s people have wrestled with historically, as these leaders in turn wrestle with issues in their contexts.

This does not mean that every answer Christ’s people have arrived at in other epochs and contexts is simply swallowed whole into such movements. I would argue we don’t do so in the west either, and would add that I don’t think we should do so.

Ecclesiology

“One’s identification with Christ should entail identification with all of Christ’s people in the world today and throughout time. That is more fundamental, ultimate, and significant than ethnic, cultural, linguistic, family, or local identity.”

I can sympathize with the intentions and heart of this concern. However, several things need to be said.

First, what is meant by identification with “all Christ’s people in the world today and throughout time? How is this even possible? How many Christians identify in this way? We have Christian denominations who do not see others as Christian, will not have communion together, do not recognize one another’s ordinations and more. We don’t even share (fully) common creeds, confessions or canon of Scripture as Christians. So, to ask insider believers to hold to a standard that the Christian church has not attained seems hypocritical. I am not suggesting Myers is hypocritical as a person, but that this standard is.

Second, even when we do pursue unity and identification as Christians with others, this happens very much on a small, personal and local scale: through relationships. And this also happens between insider believers and thosewho we would call Christians. I have seen it and facilitated it. There is no sense among the leaders of IMs which I know that Christians are not also brothers and sisters in Christ. They welcome thinking of all believers in Jesus as members of the Body.

Soils and Strategy

“Though admittedly difficult in many contexts, religious identity and ethno-cultural identity can and should indeed be differentiated. The former must be given up for Jesus and the church. We should reject the conflation of social and religious identity.”

I want to point out where I agree and disagree with Myers here.

First, where I disagree. I understand Myers’ point here but it is, from many points of view, simplistic and impossible to separate religion and culture. We think we can, in the west. And maybe in a western context this may be partly the case, with our assumptions about secular and religious life, physical and spiritual dichotomies and assumptions that religions are easily distinguished and identified.

But in most contexts, this simply is not as easy as Myers suggests. In many religious contexts something as normal to daily life as brushing one’s teeth and using the toilet are guided by religious teaching. In such cases, what would be culture or religion? Should one brush one’s teeth differently just to show one is not keeping one’s religion? If one continues to brush teeth as they have since childhood, is that keeping their religion or their culture? These are purposely “easy” sorts of examples, in order to show that the issue actually isn’t easy.

In the simple examples above most readers will likely be thinking, “well brushing teeth doesn’t matter so even if it is guided by religion, no problem.” This already suggests we are comfortable making distinctions about what is ok and not ok to keep, even from one’s religious heritage.

Where do I agree with Myers?

The fact is that obedient discipleship will require changes. It will require replies of yes and no to all sorts of things, cultural, religious, emotional, personal, relational, attitudinal, philosophical, etc.
Thus, for me, the point is not whether one can keep culture but must jettison religion, or even whether that is a distinction we can make. The point is how do needed changes happen, how are they identified, who makes such decisions, how do they decide and for what reasons and motivations?

This is why we have taken great care in the movements I have been involved with to cultivate processes for handling such questions (for example, the questions of should we continue to do this or stop doing that). We have never given a blanket “yes, just keep doing everything.” Neither have we given a blanket “no,” on the other hand.

What we have done is asked, “What does Scripture say on this issue? How do we obey? What does being faithful mean? How do we decide which aspect of our heritage is ‘okay’ and ‘not okay?’”

Conclusion

I have no expectation of being able to persuade every critic of the viability of the biblical faithfulness of IM as movements. And my aim here is not in fact to persuade. But I do hope to explain and, where possible, correct misperceptions and assumptions which result in misrepresentations. I do not for a moment suggest Myers intends to misrepresent anything about IM—but at the end of the day that is the result of the five points.

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

The Motus Dei Network: Fostering Communal Intelligence on Movements

The Motus Dei Network: Fostering Communal Intelligence on Movements

Longtime readers of Mission Frontiers are most likely familiar with movements. Movements are indeed an exciting work of God and no mere passing fad in missions. They have occurred in the past and will continue in the future. However, familiarity can sometimes be unhelpful if we have faulty assumptions or if we take too much for granted. One solution to this potential problem is to frame our quest for knowledge about movements through thoughtful and deliberate questioning.

The Strategic Advantages of Research

Asking rigorous questions about movements is not to doubt their existence or to criticize the work of God. Neither should it be seen as criticism of movement catalysts, nor a threat to organizations that promote movements. Good research questions are designed to test our presuppositions and force us to wrestle with the nature and limits of our existing knowledge.

While fundamental to research in general, this helps us discover what is going on behind what is going on.

In studying movements as researchers, we might ask, “What is fostering the irruption of movements in the world today?” How can the stewardship of this knowledge edify the Church and bless God’s work in redeeming all nations back to Himself? However, we do not seek the right answers as much as we seek the right questions and commit to follow the evidence where it leads.

This research quest holds many pitfalls we need to avoid. On one hand, we might become overly pragmatic, believing that movements can simply be managed more efficiently with the right knowledge. On the other hand, we might propagate sterile research for the sake of more research that has little to do with the actual lives of people and leaders catalyzing movements.

The solution is not so much balance as it is integration. Movements research can and should be both practically tangible and also theoretically robust. Through prayerful dependence on the Holy Spirit and with the Bible open, asking the right research questions about movements can facilitate this integration. But further to the point, we propose that this approach reframes missiological discourse around a new concept: the motus Dei.

The Genesis of Motus Dei

Motus Dei is Latin and means “movement of God.”

As a theological term, it intentionally mimics the concept of missio Dei which means the sending/mission of God. While not without conceptual problems,1 the missio Dei conversation has contributed much to our understanding of mission through the past several decades. God in His nature is missio, sent into the world. Created in His image, we are also sent into the world to join God in His mission.

Motus Dei invokes a similar albeit different concept. If the nature of our faith is participating in the movement of God to redeem the nations back to Himself, this suggests we need to further investigate the essence of movements and theologies that promote them. We need also to examine those traditions and theologies the church has developed that might impede motus Dei in a specific context.

We have reframed this conversation on movements around motus Dei because we desire, first and foremost, to be rooted and grounded in the life-giving character of God. We aim not simply for acceleration of fruitful ministry and multiplication of disciples, but ultimately for Jesus to receive worship from all peoples. God’s movement to achieve global worship through holistic salvation of the nations is not just something He does; it is part of His very being.

Like the “church growth movement” or the “missional church” conversation from previous generations, motus Dei has two slightly different nuances. As previously explained, it is primarily the situating of a new missiological concept, motus Dei, in the field of mission studies.2 But secondly, it is the creation of a research network and the title of an upcoming book published by William Carey, Motus Dei: The Movement of God and the Discipleship of Nations. In time, we hope these two nuances will integrate into a deeper, richer understanding of motus Dei. Ultimately, we hope this will be as edifying to the Church as the concept of missio Dei has been.

Reimagining Research on Movements

I have personally been interested in movements for around 20 years, ever since I read David Garrison’s booklet Church Planting Movements.3 While causing me to question many of my own assumptions about ministry, the booklet also gave my spirit a joyful hope and gratefulness for the work of God. It even impacted how I read the New Testament. Yet as I continued to learn more about movements, I also discovered the ways movement ideas are perceived and described sometimes cause confusion. Additionally, some may even have a negative reaction before understanding the concept.

In light of this, I began to imagine a missiological research project on the topic of movements. What causes their emergence? How can their description be more nuanced? As I considered these questions, I quickly realized that researching movements is neither straightforward nor appropriate for one person alone.

As movements are a large phenomenon in our world today, researching movements is necessarily a vast exercise. To do it justice requires integrating multiple perspectives and multiple fields of study. This will require asking a variety of questions from a variety of angles. With this robust research approach, we can avoid either sensationalizing the emergence of movements or dismissing movements as the latest fad.

Communal Intelligence and the Body of Christ

It seems natural for people to constantly search for the genius in the room or hope to read books or articles by a single genius who will answer all our questions. But this is a myth, especially in the Body of Christ. We all need each other.

We consider it more helpful to frame our conversation through the concept of “scenius.” As a play on words, this term conveys that the scene itself is the genius. In other words, instead of looking for the genius in the room, we may say the room is the genius.4

The Motus Dei Network is an application of scenius. In order to better understand movements and what God is doing today, we seek to embrace our unity in Christ and learn from one another. Extreme creativity, innovation, and knowledge come best from communal intelligence, not simply lone geniuses or great persons. Motus Dei is our attempt to gather this “ecology of talent” in a way that fosters communal intelligence on movements.

In this conversation, we have catalysts, researchers, leaders, practitioners, theologians and academics. Currently over 100 people are involved: men and women from the Global North and the Global South. This informal network does not intend to train practitioners or mobilize prayer, although as solid mission research we expect it will be a seedbed for both. We are framing Motus Dei as a multi-year conversation on the topic of movements that is informed by missiological research and authentic relationships.

Relationships are important because we do not all agree on what “movements” are, how they should be described or how they should be catalyzed. But more importantly, we refuse to buy into the worldly pattern of controlling the narrative in order to marginalize voices of those who we disagree with. As we challenge the human tendency to form “silos” of information, we anticipate disagreements and even contradictions in our network. Yet we believe our discourse will be richer and deeper for it.

Our first major output from Motus Dei is the book arising from our virtual Movements Research Symposium in October 2020. At this symposium, 20 chapters of the book were presented in abbreviated form and discussed.

We see the symposium and book as only first steps. In the coming years, we intend to have different tracks of smaller working groups gathering to share research and wisdom around different aspects of movements: particularly biblical theology, the social sciences and missional praxis. Missiology includes integration of all three of these streams, so these working groups will be in conversation together.

Join the “Movement” Movement

Motus Dei is a learning community. If you have significant experience in movements and would like to join the Motus Dei conversation, or if you have movements research you would like to share, please connect with us at http://motusdei.network Until. then, enjoy this journey of motus Dei. As you read and reflect on our upcoming book, we pray you will be compelled in wonder and joy to join God’s redemptive movement among all peoples today.

Endnotes
  1. 1 Michael W. Stroope, Transcending Mission: The Eclipse of a Modern Tradition (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2017). An abbreviated version is Transcending the Modern Mission Tradition (Oxford, UK: Regnum, 2020).

  2. 2 For an initial discussion of motus Dei, see Warrick Farah, “Motus Dei: Disciple-Making Movements and the Mission of God,” Global Missiology 2, no. 17 (2020): 1–10.

  3. 3 David Garrison, Church Planting Movements (Booklet) (Richmond, VA: International Mission Board, 2000).

  4. 4 “Scenius” originated with Brian Eno and I first heard it from Alan Hirsch at his Movement Leaders Collective. See https://move- mentleaderscollective.com/why-scenius/

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

Unreached of the Day March-April 2021 (Formerly known as the Global Prayer Digest)

Unreached of the Day March-April 2021 (Formerly known as the Global Prayer Digest)

Click on the attached .pdf icon to read the Unreached of the Day in this issue.

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

Direction—Purpose—Vision—Hope

Direction—Purpose—Vision—Hope

As he shared with our worldwide staff recently, Frontier Ventures’ General Director Kevin Higgins summarized our overall organizational direction:

Our board of directors and lead team see Frontier Ventures with a renewed clarity of apostolic purpose tied to a deep commitment to spiritual formation and community—a multi-centralized future in which most of our hubs are not in North America, and most of our members are not North American…. This is an intentional ‘re-investment of social capital’ with a different return on investment: a more diverse missiological voice, more microphones placed close to more voices in more languages, and more breakthroughs among more of the least-reached peoples of the world.

That direction is expressed by our latest statement of Vision, or Hope: The fullness of God’s blessing for all peoples and the reconciliation of all things in Christ.

That works its way down into our particular Mission, meaning what we try and do ourselves, and alongside and through others: To nurture new ways for least reached peoples to experience the fullness of life in Jesus.

Much of what Frontier Ventures will be doing is similar to the past, but how we pursue that vision and mission is changing. Some are organizational changes, which includes the expectation that within one-two years Frontier Ventures will relocate from our current headquarters in Pasadena, California and reallocate resources to a network of hubs (including a hub in southern California).

These Global Hubs will serve as centers of our staff—in community—working alongside key national, regional and local leaders to identify, initiate and foster new efforts. These efforts are seeking to both overcome the barriers that inhibit movements to Jesus, and to share what we learn for reflection, by us and others.

Our Core Functions revolve around the idea of being “alongsiders” with others as we serve:

• We seek to love and follow Jesus alongside followers of Jesus to be mutually formed in Him for the sake of all peoples. (Formation)

• We foster discernment and innovation to lead alongside leaders to nurture innovation at the edges of socio- religious peoples. (Innovation)

• We shape environments to learn alongside learners to grow our collective understanding of the work of Jesus at the frontiers. (Missiology

• We communicate alongside communicators to give wider voice for ideas from those “on-the-ground” at the edges of the kingdom. (Mobilization and Publications)

In many ways, this won’t change things in terms of what you see us producing. For example, we still:

  • Publish books and resources through William Carey Publishing (missionbooks.org)
  • Encourage prayer for the unreached—the Global Prayer Digest is now part of another ministry of ours, Joshua Project. You can get a daily email or phone notifications to remind you to pray for a specific group each day. Go to joshuaproject.net/pray/unreachedoftheday to sign up.
  • Produce Mission Frontiers, and (as usual) talk about what God and others are doing around the globe.
  • Challenge people in their approach to mission strategy through the International Journal for Frontier Missiology. (See: ijfm.org)
  • Mobilize and mentor many through a number of things, including the Perspectives Study Program (perspectives. org), both here and in more than 20 other nations (perspectivesglobal.org)
  • Serve others in everything from innovation workshops through our Winter Launch Lab, to medical professionals seeking health for all nations (through healthforallnations.com).
  • Network with many other partnerships and global bodies, including WEA–Mission Commission, NEXT Move network—serving within global migration, the Lausanne Movement and many others.
  • And that doesn’t include our sister organization William Carey International University (wciu.edu) and its degree programs. Did you know you can get an accredited MA and never leave your home? (Well OK, you might want to go out and do some research or outreach!)

FRONTIER VENTURES

Since its inception in 1976, Frontier Ventures has served initiatives to increase momentum for the breakthrough of movements to Jesus among the remaining unreached people groups of the world.

We expand missiological insight.

Joshua Project | Mission Frontiers and Global Prayer Digest | International Journal of Frontier Missiology.

We foster environments for collaboration and innovation.

Ralph D. Winter Launch Lab | Alternative Funding | NextMove

We shape spaces for training and mobilization,

Perspectives on the World Christian Movement | NextGen | Insight | Commission Training

We share ideas with the world

Mission Frontiers and Global Prayer Digest | William Carey Publishing | International Journal of Frontier Missiology

Our aim is unchanged after 40 years: movements to Jesus within every people.

Coming out of a rebranding in 2015 and a refreshing of our Board and leadership in subsequent years, Frontier Ventures is positioned for continued service to pioneering leaders and organizations.We are executing a multi-year transition from a single North American hub to a multi-centralized network of hubs that are closer to the frontiers. This will posture our community to be more diverse, closely engaged with practitioners, and connected to the contexts we hope to influence. We will continue to shape environments for pioneering leaders to engage the emerging world with missiological insight, collaboration, innovation, training, mobilization, and publishing to see breakthroughs of the gospel and movements to Jesus among all peoples.

Join the movements! frontierventures.org/partner2020      

THANKS to many of you who are already engaged with these ministries or are praying with and for us. Many also give sacrificially to support specific projects and people (keep it up!). Perhaps you or someone you know would like to joint our team and part of our missiology, innovation and forward thinking. Write to me and let’s talk about opportunities to serve with us!

This is an article from the March-April 2021 issue: Insider Movements

All Things Are Yours

All Things Are Yours

In a classic text on cross-cultural ministry Paul stated his policy of becoming all things to all people so that by all means he might save some (1 Cor. 9:22). This is sometimes treated as a specialist approach for experts in cross-cultural encounter, but the Bible presents it as a model for all ministry. It is exemplified in the incarnational pattern of Jesus who, due to the Father’s great love for the world, was sent as a true human being into a specific historical and cultural context to announce and effectuate salvation for the world.

Paul’s readiness to live like a Jew among Jews and like a Gentile among Gentiles (1 Cor. 9:20-21) was also rooted in a fundamental principle spelled out earlier in his first letter to the Corinthians. There had been factionalism among the Corinthian believers; some sided with Paul, some with Apollos, some with Peter. Paul rebuked this in various ways in a discussion covering the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians, coming to a climax at the end of chapter three. There he completely turned the tables and said that rather than the apostles owning factions of the believers, the entire Body of Christ owned all of the apostles.

In a typically Pauline flight to the highest elevations and deepest recesses of theological thought, Paul then jumped from the Corinthian ownership of the apostles to the stunning affirmation that “all things are yours” (1 Cor. 3:21). That sounds hyperbolic, but Paul spelled it out so it could not be dismissed as a mere rhetorical flourish; the world is yours, life and death are yours, the present and the future are yours, so yes, indeed, I really mean that “all things are yours” (1 Cor. 3:22). This of course is through Christ the Lord (1 Cor. 3:23).

The commentarial tradition of the Church has not applied this Pauline emphasis on the possession of all things to cross-cultural situations, but it clearly is an underlying principle that allowed Paul in practice to become all things to all men. What many commentaries do point out is that in affirming this possession of all things by the disciples of Christ, Paul was adapting a truism of some of the philosophical schools of the time, which had particular relevance to the Corinthian context, where wisdom was a hot topic of discussion. The wise man among the Stoic philosophers was one who rose above all situations and problems by remaining in control of his thoughts and actions rather than being driven by external events.1 Paul brought this Stoic concept into submission to Christ, where it was transformed into a larger and more profound theological truth that he affirmed to weak and immature Corinthian believers who were failing in some very basic aspects of spiritual life.

The possession of all things by the disciples of Christ was spelled out as a fundamental missiological concept by the Dutch missiologist Johan Herman Bavinck. He did not tie his exposition to Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 3:31, but the relation of the two is unmistakable. Bavinck was concerned about syncretistic tendencies in the Roman Catholic theology and practice of accommodation wherein non-Christian practices are adopted by the Church. He wrote,

Here note that the term “accommodation” is really not appropriate as a description of what actually ought to take place. It points to an adaptation to customs and practices essentially foreign to the gospel. Such an adaptation can scarcely lead to anything other than a syncretistic entity, a conglomeration of customs that can never form an essential unity We would, therefore prefer to use the term possessio, to take in possession. The Christian life does not accommodate or adapt itself to heathen forms of life, but it takes the latter in possession and thereby makes them new Within the framework of the non-Christian life, customs and practices serve idolatrous tendencies and drive a person away from God. The Christian life takes them in hand and turns them in an entirely different direction; they acquire an entirely different content. Even though in external form there is much that resembles past practices, in reality everything has become new. The old has in essence passed away and the new has come. Christ takes the life of a people in his hands, he renews and re-establishes the distorted and deteriorated; he fills each thing, each word, and each practice with a new meaning and gives it a new direction. Such is neither “adaptation,” nor accommodation; it is in essence the legitimate taking possession of something by him to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth.

The profound implications of Paul’s teaching and of Bavinck’s concept of possessio need to be at the center of biblical discussions of cross-cultural ministry, especially with regard to other religious traditions. These insights point to a positive approach to other religious traditions rather than a blanket renunciation or repudiation of them. Rather than renouncing the Buddhist heritage, a Buddhist who comes to Christ needs to be oriented towards taking possession
of that heritage. Clearly there is a necessary discerning and sifting process in taking possession of truths and practices from other faith traditions; Paul after all was rebuking false wisdom in the Corinthians, and Bavinck clearly calls for a reorientation towards Christ.

Careful nuancing of this truth is essential in a number of directions. First, the missionary movement is still emerging from the shadow of colonialism, and nothing stirs anti-Christian emotions quite as much as a triumphalistic or domineering attitude. Can a Christian disciple of Jesus take possession of another faith tradition without straying into this offensive mindset? It is a delicate procedure to be undertaken with deep humility,
yet Paul did not shirk from stating this truth into a complex situation in Corinth. Cross-cultural workers will rarely have the insight, sensitivity or humility to successfully negotiate this terrain even with guidance from local believers, yet they must not draw back from the implications of Paul’s teaching. J. H. Bavinck recognized the inadequacy of the cross-cultural worker as well; “the newly formed church is usually a better judge in such matters than we [missionaries] are” (ibid. pg. 177).

It is not possible for every part of the Body of Christ to take possession of every aspect of life; rather, some parts of the Body will more particularly be related to different aspects of God’s profoundly diverse world. It is particularly those who come to faith from Buddhist families who must wrestle with the meaning of possessio in Buddhist contexts, while people from Hindu and Muslim and post-modern contexts seek to apply this insight in their particular worlds. Cross-cultural workers will of course join as servants in the engagement of these issues in the various contexts.

It must be affirmed again that there can be no facile embracing of anything and everything taught or practiced in other religious traditions. All is brought under Christ, and a sifting and filtering is necessary. Yet teaching new disciples of Jesus in other faith traditions that “all things are yours” and that it is your responsibility in Christ to take possession of your religio-cultural heritage challenges some assumed paradigms. Primarily challenged is the necessity of “conversion to Christianity.” If Buddhists who turn to Christ are taught that Buddha is theirs, are they really called to renounce Buddhism? Obviously they are called to discern and sift much that is unbiblical among the many traditions that are currently called Buddhism, but if they take possession of that heritage, how or why can or should they also renounce it? The same applies to the other major faith traditions, all of which are as much about culture as they are about theology, and all of which are multi-cultural as well as multi-theological.

The problem of neo-imperialist triumphalism is trumped by a missiology which rejects “conversion to Christianity” as an essential aspect of the gospel. The new disciple of Jesus is under a mandate from Christ and the New Testament to live within (take possession of) their birth community and religio-cultural heritage. This kind of surrender to the Lordship of Christ leading to possessio of one’s heritage in conformity to Christ can be viewed from another angle as well. To the birth community of the new disciple, be it Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or other, it is not a rejection of the old or transfer to the new, but rather citizens of the original community taking possession of the truth of the Gospel. Thus hegemonic religious imperialism is avoided and the interpenetration of the Gospel among all civilizations and faiths is accomplished.

It is surely obvious, but will be stated here in closing, that this is not a simple process. J. H. Bavinck recognized this as well: “It is naturally much easier to speak theoretically of taking possession, than it is to give practical advice. The question of possessio leads to the greatest problems throughout the entire world” (ibid. pg. 179).

Redefining the problems and complexities of cross-cultural encounter and contextualization in terms of possessio rather than of conversion and repudiation seems a helpful first step towards affirming in a fresh way the multi- cultural nature of the gospel and of its call for all peoples to surrender to Christ within their own heritage.

“The nations will walk by the light of the Lamb, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into the eternal city” (Rev. 21:24).

Endnotes
  1. See the documentation referred to by Conzelmann in support of his summary that According to the Stoic principle, "All things belong to the wise man," i.e., he is lord over all that comes to him from without (Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, tr. James W. Leitch, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, pg. 80).

  2. An Introduction to the Science of Missions, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1960, pp. 178-179. Bavinck¹s use of "Christian" and "non-Christian" in this paragraph indicates that he wrote in the mid-twentieth century. In the current clash of civilizations era these terms carry many misleading connotations, and most people do not like to be identified by what they are not (non-Christians). It is preferable to refer to disciples of Christ (or bhaktas [devotees] of Christ in Hindu contexts) rather than "Christians" since spiritual commitment is not necessarily perceived in the term "Christian" but is definitely indicated in the alternate terms.

This is an article from the January-February 2021 issue: Home Grown Movements

Becoming the Kind of Person God Can Use to Launch Movements— Part 1

Becoming the Kind of Person God Can Use to Launch Movements— Part 1

We long for more than we see today. Though incredible things are happening and many new movements are being started across the globe, we hunger for more. We look at the world, or our current ministry, and feel a holy dissatisfaction with the status quo. This longing, even discontentment comes from the Father’s heart. It is there because God has more for us. Millions remain unreached and we are called to impact them in greater ways than we have yet seen.

Whether you are an existing movement leader who has already seen many generations, or someone just beginning to catalyze movements, with our eyes on the ripe harvest, we must always look for more. How do we become the kind of people who God can trust with those greater fruits?

As DMM practitioners we often focus on skills and strategy. This has merit. It is necessary. What is just as important, however, is focusing on becoming the kind of people God can use greatly. Some would argue that this is even more vital than having the right giftings, methodology or approach.

Most likely you’ve seen it happen. Someone with charisma, gifting and much potential crashes and burns as the movement begins to expand rapidly. They become proud, or their marriage suffers, or they begin to control things. Perhaps even worse, we see things like a moral failure in the lives of those whom God has powerfully used. Public failures in the lives of significant spiritual leaders are devastating to many.

What does it take? Who do we need to be for God to trust us with supernatural, extraordinary growth and kingdom fruit? Many things could be included. This list is not complete or exhaustive, yet these are some of the top things life and experience have taught me.

I see these twelve characteristics in the lives of the New Testament apostles and modern-day movement leaders God is powerfully using. These are things I aspire to continue to grow in as I pursue the launching or development of a Disciple Making Movement. In this first part, I will touch on the first six. After each one are discussion questions you can talk about with your spouse or team. Or, perhaps you’d like to journal about them.

1. They have an ever-growing relationship with God and an extraordinary prayer life.

In the first chapters of Acts, the church in Jerusalem is beginning to multiply rapidly. The Holy Spirit was moving. Compassion needs were growing. In this rapid growth environment, the apostles needed to stay focused on two things; the ministry of the Word and prayer.(Acts 6:3-4) They could not afford to allow the busy-ness and pressures of growing ministry to take them away from devoting themselves to these two top priorities.
Extraordinary prayer has been well documented as a characteristic of every move of God in history. Leaders who desire to see God work in their regions prioritize prayer. They spend much time with Jesus, alone, as well as in corporate prayer. Those close to them find them often on their knees, regularly pulling away from the crowds to be alone with their Master.

We can not afford to allow our relationship with God to grow stagnant as we give ourselves to the needs of the movement. Instead, we must maintain strong boundaries that protect our times alone with God where we receive His wisdom, guidance, and strength and where we simply enjoy our love relationship with Him.

Questions for Assessment and Discussion:

  • In what ways has your love relationship with Jesus grown sweeter this year?
  • Do you enjoy taking time away to be with the Lord and how often do you do this?
  • How have you grown as an intercessor this past year?

2. They are bold and faithful in witness.

Numerous issues prevent us from living a life of faithful witness. Weariness,  busy-ness, lack of confidence and fear    of man top my list. Perhaps the greatest contributor to our failure in regular witness is a lack of a sense of urgency. Movement leaders deeply feel a sense of urgency to bring people to Christ. Their hearts are broken with the compelling needs of the lost around them. They are theologically convinced that apart from hearing about Christ the unreached are eternally lost. This moves them to step outside their weariness, busy-ness, or fears to lovingly share the message of redemption with those they meet.

These leaders notice the people around them. The first thing they assess is whether or not someone nearby needs the message of the gospel. They are constantly looking for new opportunities to share Christ on a personal level as well as through training others to share the good news.

Questions for Assessment and Discussion:

  • When was the last time you shared your testimony?
  • How frequently do you tell stories from the Bible with people around you?
  • What prevents you from sharing boldly and faithfully?

3. They are willing to face persecution from enemies.

In the Beatitudes, Jesus promised persecution. He said, “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me…” (Matt. 5:11 NIV) Movement leaders and catalysts understand that their life is not their own and that persecution is normal. They have understood and accepted Jesus’ command to take up their cross and follow Him.
Though we do not seek persecution, we must expect it. These leaders present the gospel in a way people can clearly understand. Using cultural bridges, they make the message of Jesus easy to understand. At the same time, they are willing to call for both repentance and shifting of allegiance. As many repent and believe, attacks from those who oppose the faith grow. This is to be expected. It is what we see as we study the growth of the New Testament Church and the lives of the apostles. In the book of Acts, there is a clear correlation between demonstrations of the kingdom (signs and wonders) and an increase in opposition. God worked, people were saved, the enemy reacted.

How can we expect less?

Leaders who seek to be free of hardship and difficulties should not pursue the launching of Kingdom Movements. As you begin to see growth, both the enemy and other “forces” will react. Persecution, whether overt or behind the scenes, is sure to come.

Questions for Assessment and Discussion:

  • In what ways have you encountered resistance from people or communities because of your message?
  • How do you respond to persecution?
  • What have you done to prepare yourself and those you are training for persecution?

4. They are willing to be misunderstood by friends.

Jesus was not a people pleaser. He loved those around Him and was deeply concerned for their well being. That did not stop Him from being willing to go against the status quo of what was expected and acceptable to others—even those in positions of religious power. Six times in the gospels He used the phrase “he who has ears to hear.”

Our Lord knew that some would listen and be utterly transformed by His words. Others would reject them. This did not disturb Jesus. Yet so often it deeply troubles our hearts when people reject our words, message or approach.
Movement leaders and catalysts are willing to pay the price of being misunderstood by other Christian leaders, colleagues, friends and even leaders they respect. To launch a movement, you must be willing to say no to many things. It involves a high level of focus on obedience to Christ’s commands. This doesn’t make you popular.

As we challenge and train people to become disciple-makers, some will feel threatened. Others will attack your theology. Guilt, fear, and jealousy can rear their ugly heads. When you start to empower ordinary believers to baptize, serve the Lord’s supper and start groups of disciples that morph into churches that start churches, many will ask you where you got the authority to do such things. They asked the same of Jesus and the early apostles.
Don’t let their questions or negative responses discourage you. Choose to respond in the opposite spirit. Speak well of them and their work. Refuse to take offense. Be willing to be misunderstood by many Christians to reach those no one else will reach.

Questions for Assessment and Discussion:

  • How important are your image and reputation?
  • In what ways have you chosen to surrender this to the Lordship of Christ?
  • If fear of man is a struggle in your life, what will you do to fight against this tendency?
  • Have you experienced rejection or misunderstanding with others because you applied DMM principles? If so, how did you handle this?

5. They are able to innovate, evaluate and change

Those who pioneer new movements in unreached places are willing to step out of the norm and experiment with new ways of doing things. While also highly valuing proven fruitful practices, they are willing to try new approaches especially when not seeing the results they had hoped for. Creative ideas excite them and they are willing to take risks on both people and methods as long as they are in line with Scripture and basic DMM principles like reproducibility.

When things work well, they accelerate those processes. They are not afraid of failure but learn from mistakes and fail forward. Prayerful times away for evaluation with their team and closest disciples is a regular part of their planning.

They do not get too attached to any particular strategy or method and are more loyal to seeing fruit and kingdom results than to a particular way of doing things. This does not mean they are short-sighted and seek immediate results at the cost of long-term impact, however.

Instead of getting stuck in a rut, these leaders are continually seeking to improve the fruitfulness of their efforts and constantly look for new ways to see even greater multiplication.

Questions for Assessment and Discussion:

  • Describe a time you have been afraid of failure. How did it impact you?
  • How often do you take time away to evaluate your disciple-making efforts in light of the fruit you are seeing? What could you do to encourage innovation and creativity in yourself or your team?

6.They are willing to stop doing unfruitful activities and focus on a few high impact things.

Resisting the temptation to do everything, the kinds of leaders who see much fruit are willing to focus on a few key things they feel deeply called to do. This means they become skilled at saying no to other activities that are  not in line with their God-given vision. They resist the temptation to pursue every dream or idea they or others have. Though visionary, they are careful to guard their time and priorities.
They choose the most impactful, essential disciple-making activities over many other good activities they could be involved in.

Questions for Assessment and Discussion:

  • Are there any methods or strategies you feel particularly loyal to? If they failed to produce fruit, would you be willing to change? Why or why not?
  • Which of your activities is producing the most fruit and multiplication? Which is draining but doesn’t yield much fruit?
  • What boundaries have you set in place to guard your time? Are you able to give adequate time for top priorities like prayer, leadership mentoring, disciple-making and meeting lost people?

In the next issue, we will look at further characteristics. Which of the six mentioned above do you find most challenging? Take steps to address these areas by first taking them to God in prayer. Then take action steps of how you will work on these areas in the coming month. Share those with your team or coach.

This is an article from the January-February 2021 issue: Home Grown Movements

Movements Can Happen Here Too, If We Are Willing to Work for Them

Movements Can Happen Here Too, If We Are Willing to Work for Them

Movements are miracles and they are happening every day all over the world. But can they happen in America? That is what this issue of MF is all about—the stories of people who believe that movements can happen here and are working tirelessly to make them a reality. In this issue, we talk to some of these people to see what they are doing and what we can learn from their experiences as they seek to foster movements in the United States—a context very different from the various peoples around the world where the majority of Kingdom Movements are currently taking place.

Many believe that the spiritual soil of America is too hard, rocky and resistant to the gospel for any movement to take place here. See the March-April 2019 issue of MF featuring the question, “Why are there so few movements in the West?” As that issue of MF reveals, it is true that, in general, the spiritual soil of America is not as receptive to the gospel as it is in other places around the world. It seems that the prosperity that many enjoy in this country has hardened hearts and made it more difficult for movements to take place, but not impossible.

Progress is being made in those segments of society that are more open. Justin Long of Beyond has counted 31 movements taking place in North America. It is happening here through the faithful diligence of many of God’s people who have caught the vision for movements in America. But we need to face the reality that starting a movement anywhere, in cooperation with the Holy Spirit, is very hard work and failure is more common than success. The question for the rest of us is “Are we willing to put in the hard work necessary for us to see more of these movements take place in the U.S.?”

We Have No Choice But to Pursue Movements

The fact is that we really do not have a choice whether we pursue movements in the U.S. or not. It does not matter whether the spiritual soil of America is bad or not. This is where most of us live and we are called by Jesus to make disciples where we live.

The model of ministry pursued by most churches in the U.S. where we go to a big building once a week, sing a few songs, listen to a sermon, go home, forget what was said in the sermon and then repeat this process week after week, is killing the Church in America and everywhere else it is exported. At best the Bible-believing Church in America is barely holding its own and is likely in a slow decline with an increasing number of people moving into the “no faith” category. We are losing the culture to increased secularism, biblical illiteracy and moral decline. We are also often losing our own kids to unbelief. The status quo is unacceptable.

The doing-church-as-usual crowd may be comfortable with a Christian faith that requires little of them and provides the worship experience they are looking for, but this model of doing church is leaving the great majority of lost souls untouched and the surrounding culture unchanged.

Employing an attractional approach to ministry in the hope that the unsaved will come in the door of your church, hear the gospel and be saved is at best a passive approach to ministry that leaves most of the unchurched, untouched. According to Barna research, two-thirds of the unchurched have been to church and do not wish to return. Creating all sorts of new programs in the hope of attracting them will not work. We need a new strategy.

Instead of asking the unchurched to come, why not equip your church members to go and make disciples of their friends, family, co-workers and acquaintances? People who will not darken the door of your church will very likely respond positively to an invitation to dinner at a friend’s home where the gospel may be sensitively shared. They may even respond well to an invitation to see what the Bible says about God.

As you read through this issue of MF, learn from what these movement practitioners are doing and think about applying these movement methods in your own local context.
Do You Have What It Takes to Be a Movement Catalyst?

Whether a movement happens through any of us is really dependent upon us. In the article starting on page 37, C. Anderson points us to those spiritual qualities that are characteristic of, or even required for a movement catalyst to be successful at fostering a Kingdom Movement. All of us are at various stages of our spiritual maturity and    all of us need to be circumspect enough to recognize where we fall short in our relationship to God and others.

I encourage you to take a look at this first part in a series on the spiritual qualities of those that are successful in starting movements. Then ask God to help you to grow in those areas where you fall short. Each of us should want to strive to be the kind of disciple worth reproducing and capable of making disciples.

Support the Work of Mission Frontiers

As is the case with most publications, Mission Frontiers cannot cover its costs from subscriptions alone. We need additional funds from those who believe in this ministry and are willing to sacrifice to help us move forward in casting vision for Kingdom Movements in all peoples. Like most of the people who work for Frontier Ventures my salary is supplied by the donations of churches and friends who believe in what I am doing. And also like many staff members at Frontier Ventures, there are many months when not enough comes in to fully cover our allotted salary. To donate to my ministry with MF go to http://www.frontierventures.org and click on the Donate button. Put MA 323 in the dialog box. If you would like to help MF cover its general expenses and expand its influence, go to the same web address, given above, click on the Donate button and put MA 030 in the dialog box. We greatly appreciate whatever you can do to help Mission Frontiers and Frontier Ventures continue its work to see Kingdom Movements emerge in all peoples.

This is an article from the January-February 2021 issue: Home Grown Movements

Addressing a Blind Spot in Missions

Addressing a Blind Spot in Missions

Ah, dear brothers and sisters there is a blind spot in Christian missions today. The mere mentioning of the blind spot at this point could lose ninety-five percent of those of you reading this first sentence. That would be both unfortunate and unproductive to the purposes of God. Consider the many tools used for prayer and mobilization toward reaching unreached peoples. Most lists include statistics on religions, languages, populations and access to available Bible translations. No blind spot so far.

Most readers of Mission Frontiers are familiar with the term mother tongue which means the primary language a person grows up speaking. This differs from the local trade language which is used in the market to do business with people who have a different mother tongue. But it is through their common trade language which both of them know that they can talk and do business. For the last 100 years in their quest to produce the Scriptures in every language in the world, Bible translators have now translated the Bible into every trade language in the world. What does this mean? This means that the Scriptures are now available to every person in the world in a language they can understand. And so the issue is no longer a matter of having access to the gospel and the word of God. Because most of the unreached people in the world are illiterate, whether they have access to a Bible in a language they understand or not, the main issue is now literacy.

Morris Watkins was the founder of the Lutheran Bible Translators and during his career Morris came to see the blind spot. How’s that for an oxymoron? Morris had come to understand that even when the Bible was made available in a people’s  language, the majority of the people in most unreached groups were unable to read it.     The blind spot is simply that there is massive illiteracy throughout the unreached peoples of the world.

In missions we’ve glossed over the illiterate by calling these people the more positive sounding term oral learners. Having done this for 14 years, I am now convinced this is not the way to go. I no longer want to leave an oral learner as an oral learner. That person needs to learn to read. If storytelling missionaries like me had spent a fraction of their time the last 14 years starting literacy classes to teach oral learners how to read, the people in Africa and Asia and South America and elsewhere who had been illiterate would now be literate and so much farther down the road toward being disciples and enjoying the abundant life Jesus wants us all to have. (John 10:10)

Our national co-workers in the country where we’ve been working are using our book of Bible stories and say they are seeing great fruit, but that fruit is occurring among people who can read. These evangelists and church- planters are telling us the people who can’t read do not feel confident to share the stories with others and depend on someone else to come and re-tell them the stories. We’ve learned and we believe that storytelling is an excellent methodology for making disciples IF the person can go home and read and re-read the stories over and over again just like we do. Acts 17:11 says, “The people in Berea examined the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true.” Literacy is an essential component for making disciples. Jesus said, “If you continue in my word you are truly my disciples.” (Jn 8:31) But it is pretty hard to continue in His Word and examine the Scriptures, the written Word of God, if you don’t know how to read. But what if the people prefer oral learning? I will now answer that by asking a question. What does God prefer?

There are many issues in the world of missions today. One that is not often mentioned is the low self-esteem of perhaps 400 million men who are the heads of their households yet do not know how to read. John the Baptist cried out, “Every valley shall be lifted up.” What do you think he meant? I believe this verse could be interpreted that through John, God is talking about people with low self-esteem who need to be lifted up, just as every mountain of pride needs to be brought low. (Luke 3:5) So let’s say an illiterate man is in the market where he  hears of a literacy class that’s  beginning in which he can learn to read his trade language in just four months.   Two hours a day in the evening after work, six days a week for four months and the life of this man can be completely changed. And what can this man do after that? He can come home and gather his family around     him and begin to read to them, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Some people will argue it is best for people to hear the word of God in their mother tongue. Yes  that’s  true. But if someone has learned to read  in their trade language, they can then translate the word orally into their mother tongue.     So using their mother tongue, this man begins to lead his family in a discussion of the passage he just read to them in their trade language. This father’s esteem in the eyes of his wife and children and their community just went through the roof. This man has learned to read and has a new life.

Near Neighbor Evangelism

The previous anecdote is but a seed. It  is what George Patterson called near neighbor evangelism as the teachers of these literacy classes would be local believers. For many years, Dr. Patterson’s teaching of The Spontaneous Multiplication of Churches was a favorite of the various lessons in the Perspectives course and probably still is. In the summer of 1987 at the U.S. Center for World Mission, just as the Perspectives class was about to take a break, Dr. Patterson said, “Oh and by the way we are not the ones who are going to complete the Great Commission. I was planning to go to Mongolia at that time and was out of my seat in a shot exclaiming, “What do you mean we’re not the ones who are going to finish the Great Commission?” Little did I know I had fallen right into Dr. Patterson’s trap and he calmly said, “You ask that question when we come back from the break” and he dismissed the class. After the break, even as the students were still taking their seats, Dr. Patterson was at the front of the class. He looked at me and said, “Now you ask that question again.” So in a much calmer voice I repeated what Dr. Patterson had said and my question. No one in the class had ever heard of near neighbor evangelism. But as George Patterson unpacked this true and beautiful thesis being one of the keys to the spontaneous multiplication of churches, no one could object. Near neighbor evangelism is simply equipping and releasing believers who are culturally closer to your focused unreached people than you are. These discipled believers will then be the ones to bring the gospel to their unreached neighbors across the river, over the mountain or on the other side of town, etc. These believers are culturally near to the unreached tribe and speak the same trade language they do.

According to Literacy Evangelism International (LEI) it takes an adult four months to learn to read their language. Four months of focused and determined attention and a previously illiterate adult can learn to read and write.      It was the missionary Frank Laubach back in the 1950s who developed the methodology of literacy training, associating pictures with sounds and words, a modification of which is now in use by LEI and others, and has been used to teach adults how to read in over 40 countries. Millions and millions of people have learned to read as a result. Still literacy statistics reveal 800 million of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims remain illiterate. And all together, over a billion people in the world are still functionally illiterate and the overwhelming majority of these people are unreached.

Only 19% of the people in Niger know how to read. Chad is second lowest at 25%, then South Sudan 29%, Guinea at 30%, Mali 35%, Burkina Faso 36%, Central African Republic 36%, Benin 38%, Ivory Coast 43%, Liberia 47%, Sierra Leone 48%, Ethiopia 49%, Mauritania 52%, Gambia 55%, Senegal 57%, Mozambique 58%, Nigeria 59%, and Guinea Bissau at 59%. These figures come from individual governments reporting to UNESCO and their figures are probably inflated so not to look too low. UNESCO also has Afghanistan at just 38% and Pakistan is at 57%.

Very little is being written in mission literature today regarding this issue of illiteracy. Most certainly this blind spot is holding back the growth and spread of the gospel. Learning to read through relational literacy classes can build relationships with neighbors and enable people’s lives to become more fulfilled. Furthermore, the skill of reading will significantly accelerate evangelism, discipleship, church-planting and the completion of the Great Commission.

What is it that needs to be done? It’s pretty simple really.Though we didn’t know it, we have been trying to jump from kindergarten directly to the second grade. We have been trying to disciple people with written material they couldn’t read. So now we add one more step, the all-important first grade, four months of literacy training, into our discipleship programs. The teachers of the classes will be local literate believers who can become near neighbor evangelists. Church-planting mission organizations around the world need to envision how literate disciples who have been through a simple three-day training can be used of God to teach literacy. These believers can be empowered and equipped to be used to spread the blessing of God to their neighbors down the road who speak a different mother tongue, by teaching them to read and write their common trade language.

Lifetime relationships can begin in literacy classes, as near neighbor believers suddenly find themselves involved with people in one of life’s most crucial and important transformations and as their students learn the life-giving skill of reading. It would be hard to imagine this relational four month process taking place without a loving  bond having been created through which the gospel can be shared. Literacy training is the vital instrument. And who do these adult students have to thank for this amazing blessing that has opened and changed their life but that Christian teacher who also talked to them about Jesus, their newfound Lord and Savior… and His book. May God turn the evil of illiteracy to good as movements to Christ take place through the humble service of ordinary near neighbor evangelists who have been equipped and challenged to become literacy teachers.

“And Jesus went to Nazareth where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath He went into the synagogue.
And He stood up to read.” (Luke 4:16)

This is an article from the January-February 2021 issue: Home Grown Movements

Tribute to Lee Purgason 1956-2020

Tribute to Lee Purgason 1956-2020

A short while ago, after a months' long battle with cancer, good friend and fellow staff member, Lee Purgason left his earthly body. He joined the staff of the USCWM (now Frontier Ventures) in 1980. We recently honored him on his 40th anniversary.

Recruited in the exhibit hall at Urbana 1979, Lee caught the vision for the unreached, sold all he owned, drove across the country and arrived at the USCWM. In a few years he met and married Kitty, who had come from teaching English in China to join the faculty of WCIU. Early in their marriage she finished a PhD at UCLA and was teaching at WCIU and later at Biola.

Lee was trained in accounting and we desperately needed those skills, so Lee started off serving in the finance office of WCIU. He continued to use that amazing asset throughout his years on staff, in whatever department he worked. Later, he also earned a graduate degree in Organizational Leadership, which was especially helpful when he was Director of Operations.

But Lee wasn’t just a numbers guy. He really enjoyed people. He headed our HR department for a while, where he supervised my future daughter-in-law. He loved meeting new people and connecting with old friends. He wanted to know what you were interested in.

All of those relational and business skills were an excellent combination when Lee led the Perspectives Study Program. He was the longest serving Perspectives director – 1986-2000. Lee helped get the U.S. program on solid footing nationally and also laid the groundwork for Perspectives Global – now in more than 25 countries. Under his leadership, classes grew an average of 15% per year and the Perspectives on the World Christian Movement Reader was revised twice.

As the years went by and many staff came and went from Pasadena, Lee remained. Unofficially he became what he jokingly called our “institutional memory.” He was the “go to” guy for many people and many issues – be they small or large. And his giftings were especially helpful in his service on the boards of both Frontier Ventures and William Carey International University. Most recently, his financial acumen helped us manage our endowment.

Yet  while he was in top leadership from the early days, he didn’t  mind serving in behind-the-scenes ways, such   as running the sound board for meetings. Almost all of what he did served others both in Frontier Ventures and around the world.

Work at the USCWM wasn’t just showing up to an office. Up to a few years ago, most staff lived in ministry-owned homes near the campus in Pasadena. That meant a lot of shared life together. That is the beauty of the Body of Christ in community —living and serving together.

This was particularly true for the Purgasons and my family, since our kids were similar ages and we watched each other’s kids. My son remembers Lee like an uncle. As an adult, Lee still encouraged him whenever they saw each other. Many staff children experienced the same thing. Another informal way he encouraged kids and adults was during volleyball games played on campus after our weekly Thursday evening staff dinner. Though he was an expert player and coach, he patiently encouraged the novices, using it as an opportunity to teach skills and teamwork.

And Lee loved swimming as his regular exercise. Since both Lee and I swam on our high school swim teams, we connected on that subject. Regularly, even in the last year, he shared with me times from meets for the “Masters Swimmer” (which is basically older swimmers who are still swimming competitively). Lee would often share with me the “times” 50+ men and women swimmers were able to pull off. And he stayed in shape his entire life, even getting back into the pool after his initial cancer treatments.

Accountability to commitment was part of Lee’s character. In those early days, he was a natural fit for a growing committed community that sought to: 1) Be willing to accept our aspirations (such as daily time in the Bible, prayer, our Monday-Friday morning meeting at 7:45 a.m., daily prayer for the unreached…), 2) Be willing to be helped in that commitment, and, 3) Be willing to help others.

Lee modeled all of it. Even the often difficult third point. More than once he asked me to keep him accountable for something in his life. Unlike many other believers, Lee realized he needed that help. I heard the phrase “Ask me how I’m doing in…” many times.

In the 1980s, our founder Ralph D. Winter was concerned that the very busy staff get  appropriate  exercise, especially  aerobic.  He  picked  Lee to be the one to whom everyone would report their weekly aerobic points! As would become typical, Lee carefully thought both about the practicalities and the impact on staff and while he embraced most of the plan, “pushed back” on some aspect of the idea (he did that a lot with Dr. Winter, and actually, Winter very much appreciated it!).

One staff member was pregnant at the time of this new exercise push and complained about this requirement to her husband, but when her doctor said it was a great idea, she and her husband started walking. They still walk together some 40 years later. I got back into swimming and later I began mountain bike riding. I can’t calculate how much Lee’s help in keeping me (and others) accountable in this area has meant to my life, psyche and health.

The main building of Frontier Ventures is Hudson Taylor Hall. No one has spent more time in HTH than Lee Purgason. That’s part of the reason I used the word “faithfulness” for him. Lee was always there. Not just in the building, but if, when and wherever he had committed to be. He never showed up for a meeting late, and he might gently suggest that you be on time too! I will miss Lee day-to-day. I will miss his distinctive stride as he walked around the courtyard of Hudson Taylor Hall.

He seemed to be doing well and responding to his treatments, so we were shocked by news of his death. Organizationally, we are groping to fill in the gaps he leaves. Lee’s office had piles of paper, but it was more like a historic “dump” of his work – yet he could find exactly what he needed in those piles!

I will miss him—his cogent summaries in meetings, his sense of humor, his singing—and this will be probably be my first MF page in 25 years that he has not proofread!

He came to Pasadena from North Carolina 40 years ago for a reason – to see that every people group can hear about Jesus in a way they can understand. That is still in our organizational DNA. So, we fight on.

While he isn’t yet in the new heavens and earth described in Revelation 21-22, I can see him strutting along streets of gold both calculating how much it is worth and stopping to talk with everyone in his path.

Rev. 21:4—He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.

Rev 22:4-5—They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.

Because of Lee’s service to WCIU, including a board member since 1990, the University has established a student scholarship in his and Kitty’s honor (Kitty taught there and was also on the board briefly). See https://www.wciu.edu/partner.  Or you can give a scholarship for students to attend the next Urbana (urbana.org).

Lee was always involved in his home church missions team, and they have set up a link for giving at: https://pascov.breezechms.com/give/online where there is a drop down menu “in memory of Lee.”

Well done, good and faithful servant!

This is an article from the January-February 2021 issue: Home Grown Movements

Why Rapid Growth Declines as Movements Grow in Size

Why Rapid Growth Declines as Movements Grow in Size

When they are small, movements tend to experience very rapid growth— they might double in size multiple times in a given year. Over time, as movements get larger, this growth tends to plateau. Why? Is it because, as time passes, evangelists get less enthusiastic? The case studies of movements I have collected don’t suggest this is the case. There’s a simpler and, I think, inevitable cause that actually hallmarks a success, not a failure.

1. Movements begin due to abundant gospel-spreading activity.

Especially among the unreached, this activity is usually conducted by people with missionary or evangelistic giftings. Much of this activity could be termed “abundant sowing” (to use a biblical term) or “super-spreading” (to use an epidemiological term that many have become familiar with). One example of this kind of event was the Day of Pentecost when Peter preached and saw 3,000 come to faith on that day. Other examples include Paul’s activities in various cities and places, where he evangelized large portions of the population in a relatively short period of time.

“Abundant sowing” is marked by large numbers of people being added through “conversion” growth. This growth can be explosively fast and can lead to rapid doublings and expansions of size. It can be exhilarating, especially if it happens in places where there has been no fruit for some time.

2. Movements continue to expand

through the combination of two different kinds of growth: “abundant sowing” and “personal witness.”

The first gospel-spreaders often (1) abundantly share the gospel, (2) make disciples, and (3) from this early harvest raise up additional new “super-spreaders”—people who are gifted apostles and evangelists—who almost immediately begin sharing widely and making disciples themselves. This cyclical process can lead to sustained multiplication that can bring a movement very rapidly to four generations and 1,000 believers or more (this process is outlined in the Heart and Four Fields at https://www.missionfrontiers.org/pdfs/35-6-cpm-essentials-on-a-napkin.pdf).

As the movement grows, however,  some portion of the growth will begin to come from “demographic” growth.  Here I am referring to the everyday witness of the typical believer,  especially to their discipling of family members.   If you think about it, most believers don’t come to faith as a result of a missionary or passionate evangelist–they come to faith because of their parents, friends or co-workers.

While all believers are commanded to be ready to share their faith, not all are gifted evangelists (just as not all are gifted pastors, or teachers, or prophets or apostles). Further, passionate evangelists—“super-spreaders”—seem to be even rarer. DMM trainer David Watson once told me, “The person who shares the gospel with 1,000 other people is pretty rare. Most people don’t do anything at all. The few who do typically just disciple their families.” Other DMM practitioners agree: of those trained in DMM principles, somewhere between 2 and 10% (more typically on the 2% side) actually do anything with the training.

So while it’s true that passionate evangelists find and activate other passionate evangelists, it seems there are only  so many to find. Eventually, there are just far more parents and friends than there are super-spreading evangelists. Therefore:

  • In the early days, most growth in movements comes from a handful of evangelists who win thousands each and also find other evangelists who do the same.
  • In later days, most growth in movements comes from thousands of households who win 10 or more each and find other households who do the same.

Still, this is not the cause of the plateau. In fact, discipling activities from “typical” believers can lead to significant fruit and rapidly growing expansion.

3. The real decline in growth happens when a movement saturates a place or people group.

Any growth faster than a population’s overall growth will eventually run up against a hard barrier—the total size of the population they are working among. As more people in a place decide to follow Jesus, others—the remainder— will have made their decision not to follow. Places may not be majority-Christian, but they can still be majority- decided. Once this point is reached, the rate of growth will drop rapidly: the “ripe fruit” has already been harvested, and at best you are waiting for more fruit to ripen.

4. Reaching the plateau of saturation is not a failure—it is the inevitable result of successful, rapid multiplication.

Ephesus was an example of saturation: “This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.” (Acts 19:10) The Scripture doesn’t say they all believed, but it does say they had all heard.

This plateau brings with it a new challenge. Once the area has been saturated with the gospel and future growth depends mostly on personal discipleship, we must ask: Are we done? Is this the end of the movement? If not, what’s next?

To reach this point, disciples have gotten good at making disciples, churches have gotten good at making churches, and leaders have gotten good at making leaders. To transition past this point, movements must now get good at making movements. They have learned how to “pass on what they know.” (2 Tim. 2:2) They must now appoint people to be sent out for the sake of the gospel. (Acts 13:2) New growth must be sought by intentionally crossing borders. This will require movements to build the capacity to send its apostolic types to new, unsaturated places.
This is the same challenge everyone faces: will we choose to contribute to the completion of the Great Commission, or will we be content in our own little niche of the world? Everyone begins by focusing on their own “Judea and Samaria,” but eventually, if we are to obey Jesus completely, we must go to the uttermost parts of the earth. This is not just the domain of Western mission agencies—it is the natural next step to which movements, too, must aspire.

This is an article from the January-February 2021 issue: Home Grown Movements

Bringing the Gospel to an Entire Country in Two Weeks

Bringing the Gospel to an Entire Country in Two Weeks

In 1890 Korea was still an unreached peninsula, with only about 100 Christians. A small group of missionaries had heard about John Nevius’ radical ideas, and invited him to come and teach them about his untraditional church- planting and evangelism methods. The two-week trip changed history, and Nevius’ methods became the guiding principles for Korean missions for the next 50 years. In fact, many church historians believe Nevius’ two-week trip to Korea could have been the two most influential weeks in the history of modern missions.

Nevius parted with his peers by insisting that local workers be self-supported, self-led and self-propagating from the very beginning. Although many later applauded Nevius in hindsight, Nevius was marked as a dangerous radical in his day. He had spent almost 30 years of missionary work trying to get others to apply his methods, and he was frustrated.

After those decades of frustration in China, seeing other missionaries use ineffective methods to reach China with the gospel, Nevius wrote several articles about his methods. They were published in 1890 in the missionary journal Chinese Recorder (Shanghai, China). In 1899, they were republished under the title Planting and Development of Missionary Churches.

One of his radical ideas was that “churches should be encouraged to grow by throwing out shoots in the same manner as the strawberry plant.  Whenever  a  believer  was  converted,  he  should  become  an  active  agent for reaching someone else.” Additionally, he did not want to develop leaders who would focus on  preaching. It took too long, he felt, to produce preachers who could  speak  correctly  and  clearly  for  long periods  of  time  and  Korean  culture  at  that  time  did  not  include  listening  to  long  speeches.  Therefore,   it  was  nearly  impossible  for  a  preacher  to  hold  listeners’  attention  for  any  significant  length  of  time.    So Nevius focused instead on reproducing teachers—but these teachers were different from the traditional view of a teacher.

Many consider Nevius’  method for systematic Bible study to be his most important principle, especially the     way he mobilized lay leaders to multiply these Bible studies everywhere. He would bring believers to a location  for a few weeks, teach them a series of Bible stories and basic lessons, then send them back home to teach the stories and lessons to others. The stories and lessons focused on applying biblical principles  to  their  own everyday lives (along with memorizing Bible verses, memorizing of the Apostles’ Creed and a few other items). These individuals (teachers, or more accurately, disciplers) would go back to the sarangbang—the “welcoming room” of their houses—and invite their friends over. They would retell the stories and lessons to others, and get them to memorize the same things. Anyone attending the sarangbang lesson was expected to go and share these Bible stories and lessons with their neighbors as well. Everyone was a learner, and at the same time everyone was expected to be a teacher, immediately passing on to others what they had learned.

Nevius didn’t focus on planting churches in the traditional sense. He focused on multiplying his discipleship training, in which he brought people together and taught them the stories which they were to go and multiply with others.

Nevius found his ideas difficult to implement in China. He attributed this difficulty to the fact that traditional methods (the “Old System” as he called it) were commonplace among the many missionaries and churches already planted all over China. Once churches had begun in traditional ways, they found it difficult to change, especially when there was foreign assistance involved.

However, when Nevius went to Korea, he didn’t face that problem, as the work in Korea was still in its infancy. There weren’t any traditional structures to compete against his methods. The “Nevius Method” was simply seen as the way to do ministry. He only spent two weeks there, training others. Unfortunately, just three short years later, Nevius died; and he never knew the impact his two-week trip had on the peninsula.
Comparing the work in Korea to the work in China, the “Old System” was painstakingly slow. Some 46 years after the first missionaries came, there were only about 350 converts. In 1927, (after about 120 years of missionary presence) missionary Robert Speer lamented that the Presbyterians had only 32 self-supporting Presbyterian churches in all of China. After 100 years of ministry, Christians of all denominations in China numbered about 178,000. This might seem like a significant number, but compare it to what happened in Korea.

Korea, where the Nevius Plan was put into practice almost from the very beginning, saw a dramatic difference.   By about 1930 (after just 46 years of Protestant missionary work, Korea had over 200,000 Christian converts     (as compared to 350 in China after 46 years). By that time, the number of Korean Christians already exceeded the number of Christians in all of China, even though the mission effort in China had begun much, much earlier. While the first 100 years of missionary work in China had produced 178,000 Christians, the first 100 years of missionary work in Korea (1984) yielded 6,000,000 Christians!
Of course we know that the church in China later exploded. Yet this happened largely after 1945, when foreign missionaries had left China. This forced Chinese churches to adopt many of Nevius’ ideals, because they had no other option.

Missionaries and church leaders in Korea largely agree that Nevius’ principles provided the key to the evangelism of Korea. This explosive growth of the gospel led Pyongyang to be called the Jerusalem of the East.
Remember: Nevius only ever spent two weeks in Korea!

For discussion: What movement principles do you see in this story?

This is an article from the January-February 2021 issue: Home Grown Movements

North American Kingdom Movement Strategies Apart From a Local Church

North American Kingdom Movement Strategies Apart From a Local Church

In the other articles featured in this edition of Mission Frontiers, most of the examples have come from efforts in partnership with existing local churches. These almost all involve people who still attend some expression of the local church in traditional North American church buildings. But there’s another way to utilize Kingdom Movement (CPM/DMM) strategies. One can conceivably start totally from scratch. In this type of approach, it then becomes optional as to whether or not participants are encouraged to participate in worship services in a traditional church building while they are also “doing church” in an expression of church that meets in small groups in homes. This case study is about an emerging “Disciple Making Movement” (DMM) in Northern Michigan, led by Nathan Venton and Nick Tumi. Here’s a timeline-summary of their efforts.

Pre-2015

Nathan goes to Bible school and seminary in Michigan, and then he and his wife move to China as missionaries. During their time there, they conclude that the traditional way of doing ministry with church buildings, preaching sermons and theological training is not always effective at multiplying obedient disciples of Jesus.    After reading the book, T4T: A Discipleship Re-revolution (by Ying Kai and Steve Smith, WIGTake Resources, 2011), Nathan feels God telling him to start implementing CPM/DMM strategies. He and his family move to Florida to start working with Biglife to make disciples who multiply (big.life).
Nick is the pastor of a large, successful church in Traverse City, Michigan. Over the years as he reads the New Testament, he knows something isn’t right with the way he is “doing church,” but doesn’t know what it is. When he is introduced to Biglife and CPM/DMM, he realizes he needs to live in that style of discipleship, as he feels like he can no longer disciple people by preaching a single 30-minute sermon once a week without personal interaction or accountability. He humbly makes plans to transition away from the church that he started by giving away the church to another church with a similar style that wanted to expand into the area.

2015

Nathan and Nick, recently connected to each other, are trained by Curtis Sergeant at his Metacamp training on how to make disciples who multiply (metacamp.org/). Nathan starts to implement it in Florida, but also trains some family members in Traverse City during his time there that summer in what he had just learned about making disciples. He also starts to disciple people overseas.
Nick continues to pastor his church, but is in the final stages of giving away the ministry to another church. He starts a discipleship group, but it is attached to the church and is more like a Bible study because everyone is still involved in the church building and activities.

2016

Nathan starts a few discipleship groups in Florida, but they all fail to continue on after the first two years as the people were not obedient to share the gospel or follow up with those who came to faith.
Nick starts the transition process to give away the church he started to another church. He starts to train some people in northern Michigan and Nathan’s family members also start to disciple people they know. A few groups are started, and they also connect every month or so for leadership training and fellowship.

2017

Nathan is traveling up to 12 weeks a year overseas to disciple people so he and his wife move to Traverse City, Michigan, to be near family.
Nathan partners with Nick to help make disciples in northern Michigan. When Nathan moved, most of the discipleship was being done by “trainings” and people were not being discipled in their homes by an actual disciple-maker going there to show them how to do things and then help them as they do it. So Nathan makes a commitment to doing an actual “model and assist” with everyone, if possible, in their own home, instead of doing two or three-day intensive trainings. Nathan and Nick also go back and do the “model and assist” for each person who went through the training. All of the people trained in the previous years also go to a church building, and they find that they are not really doing what they need to do. During the year, they “filter” for those who will be obedient no matter the cost. Most people just go back to the church building and stop, but a few people are left.

2018

Nathan and Nick continue to disciple people and up to a dozen groups form. However, some of them stop because of discouragement of not winning people to Christ and they go back to the church building instead of sticking it out and meeting as the church in their home. Nick’s church transition also doesn’t go well, and the transition causes a lot of discouragement and spiritual attacks. Nick is faithful to continue on in spite of the problems.

2019

Nathan and Nick continue the “slow grind” of making disciples in a post-Christian western context. By this time, one of Nick’s disciples starts discipling a man in a prison in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and the prisoners are quick to implement the discipleship training. By the end of the year, they have multiple generations of disciples, many of whom are new believers. It is a common occurrence to see someone sharing the gospel out in the prison yard.
Nathan also feels the need to help people see the larger vision beyond just making disciples and meeting in homes as the church, so the emerging team makes a commitment to meet quarterly, in person, for leadership training. They also commit to having the network of disciples across northern Michigan meet monthly for online prayer, so people can pray with other disciples in the network as a “regional church.” By this time, people are making disciples in at least four different towns around northern Michigan, but only one to two groups are in each town, not including the prison work.

2020

During the Covid-19 pandemic, God lays it on the hearts of Nathan, Nick, and a few others in northern Michigan to pray together daily for the region. For two months, they gather together online each night to pray. During this time, there are a few salvations, even though they are in lockdown. One is Mariah, who is baptized in a horse trough in her living room by her parents while people watch on zoom. When traditional churches were thrown a curve ball, the group was able to continue using simple methods to live as disciples. Mariah then starts to use the internet to share about Jesus with her relational network from her time overseas, and disciples are starting to be made in Hawaii and Indonesia, even though she can’t even leave her house!
After the lockdown ends, the emerging movement commits to praying together weekly on Tuesday nights. They also create a Facebook group for communication between people in the network, and a simple website (big.life/team/nmi). So things like occasional regional gatherings, prayer, leaders meetings and an internet presence help give the group some rhythms and routines as a “regional church” so people can see and feel like they are part of the larger, decentralized, organic movement.

There are now about 15 discipleship groups around northern Michigan, with anywhere from six to 15 people per group and another seven groups in at least two prisons, with three to five people per group (although there might be more as Nathan says it’s hard to track groups in prisons since inmates are routinely being transferred). In all, there are now over 100 people participating.
We asked Nathan to sum up some of the lessons learned from the past four or five years.

Effective Strategies

  1. Use simple approaches that anyone can do.
  2. We try not to do two or three-day trainings anymore. Instead, we simply live life-on-life with people in their homes, showing them how to make disciples in the context of daily life. Then we assist them as they learn to carry out these strategies.
  3. Prayer, both personally and together with others, is the foundation upon which a movement is built.
  4. For our purposes, in our own efforts in northern Michigan, we have decided to encourage people not to attend both a church building and a house church (discipleship group). We have found thus far that if people try to do both, their time and priorities will be divided and they will not do either well. Our network is built on people meeting as the church in their homes, however, every region is different. We certainly would never discourage people from being involved in a more traditional church (many of us came to Christ in one!).

Obstacles and Challenges

  1. We have to keep on persevering. It is very difficult to carry out CPM/DMM strategies in a Western context with church buildings everywhere. You will be looked at as weird. Believers will be facing constant temptations to revert to attending traditional church buildings. Don’t give up!
  2. You have to be comfortable with groups failing. They will. You are constantly filtering for the obedient people who will obey no matter what the cost.
  3. Spiritual attacks on health, family and ministry.
  4. Some new believers not wanting to share the gospel and make disciples—mostly because they are too busy.
  5. It is difficult to form new groups around new believers. Westerners have a mindset of wanting to “grow and split” their discipleship groups/home churches. Try to form new groups around new people instead of adding them into existing groups. Take the time to disciple them.

It’s important to remember that a faithful disciple is a faithful disciple, wherever he or she attends. If you serve as the one to usher in a new believer and that new believer eventually joins a church that meets in a traditional church building, it’s obviously still a win for the kingdom.

This is an article from the January-February 2021 issue: Home Grown Movements

Global Prayer Digest January-February 2021

Global Prayer Digest January-February 2021

Click on the attached .pdf icon to read the GPD in this issue.

This is an article from the January-February 2021 issue: Home Grown Movements

Kingdom Movement Strategies in North American Jails & Prisons

Kingdom Movement Strategies in North American Jails & Prisons

It seems somehow telling that the message of Christmas came first to a group of humble shepherds out on a hillside, one night so long ago. Author Randy Alcorn wrote, “In Christ’s day, shepherds stood on the bottom rung of the Palestinian social ladder. They shared the same unenviable status as tax collectors and dung sweepers.”  In today’s parallel universe, many of the rich and famous celebrities that we see in movies and television often seem to make little room in their lives for Jesus and the Good News He brings to our planet. By contrast, for some unknown reason, those considered by some as social outcasts seem more likely to make space for messages of hope. One of those groups is the incarcerated. More than one CPM/DMM trainer has noticed a greater degree of traction among prisoners than among church members.

Billy’s Mission Statement

Chris Galanos mentioned Billy in a recent interview. He came to Christ through one of the groups that Chris’s team launched at the Lubbock County Jail. Billy immediately wanted to know how to make disciples so Chris’s team trained him how. Chris tells the story of the mission statement that Billy created. “Our vision is for pod 6B to have an indigenous Church Planting Movement that is led by a group of believers. We will be starting with the nine churches we’ve already planted in the past few weeks. Our vision is to reach every inmate and start discovery groups in every pod in the entire facility.” Billy and his friends in jail came up with a workable plan to request remote housing changes so they could proactively move believers into pods that, so far, didn’t have any known believers. Billy also wanted to mobilize these inmates to carry on this vision outside of the prison once they were released. Chris received a letter from Billy recently and he is continuing to make disciples with the vision of seeing the entire jail reached for Jesus.

Multiplying Groups From Prison to Prison

The names and places of this next brief summary are not the real names or places to protect the identity of those involved.

A few years ago, Jonathan trained Scott in simple disciple-making principles. Scott then moved to an area that  was near a prison and got involved with a prison ministry. He applied the principles he had learned in making disciples there and trained some of the prisoners how to share their story and God’s story with the people they knew in the prison.

Jack, who was already a Christian, was one of the key prisoners trained. He started leading other prisoners to Christ, and also helped to empower existing believers at the prison who were attending a prison ministry on Sundays. As  prisoners were discipled, they shared their story and God’s story with other prisoners and more people came to faith. It became a common occurrence to see prisoners sharing the “3 Circles” (a simple method to share the gospel) in the dirt in the prison yard. Prisoners also shared the gospel as they played sports in the yard or lifted weights together. As part of their discipleship, they also formed 3/3rds discipleship groups in their cells with their cellmates so they could meet together to grow as the Body of Christ.

After a while, Jack was also transferred to another prison. At the new prison he continued to use the simple tools he had been trained in and started to disciple people there too. As prisoners got out of prison, some of them were able to connect with disciple-making networks around the state, and became part of the larger movement outside of prison. One prisoner named John was released from prison and joined a 3/3rds discipleship group in his hometown. The disciples in that group helped him out as he reintegrated into society, and one lady even donated her car to him so he could get to a job.

When the Covid-19 pandemic hit, many people contracted the disease in the two prisons. Ministry programs were cancelled and people were not allowed to go into the prisons to do ministry. However, the prisoners who were already trained could still share their story and God’s story, and meet in their 3/3rds discipleship groups, with their cellmates. That is the beautiful thing about empowering prisoners to make disciples—they can still do it, even when others can’t go in!

Please pray that the movement will keep spreading from prison to prison as the inmates are transferred. Also pray for their reintegration into society, as they adjust to a new life, find a job, determine a place to live, get help overcoming addiction, and find a disciple-making network near to their new home to continue growing as a reproducing disciple of Jesus.

Faithful With the Few

My (Doug’s) co-worker, “Jed,” shares how he first visited inmates in a prison while serving as a church-planter in Caracas, Venezuela around 1991. The next time he visited a prison was in Kentucky in the spring of 2019 along with a few brothers in Christ. The first time in Venezuela, he said he was overwhelmed with the smells, stares and images and did not make any difference that he could imagine. The second time in Kentucky, he made a commitment to go weekly and they trained inmates in simple multiplicative disciple-making concepts and tools (DMM/CPM). The original number of 11 shrunk quickly to 3 or 4 faithful implementers once they realized accountability was involved. Those few, however, regularly shared the gospel and shared their testimonies and did weekly 3/3rds groups with fellow inmates. That group began to grow. They loved the simplicity and focus of the format. They were encouraged and empowered to participate daily in being disciples and making disciples. Over the course of about five or six months the one group had multiplied to 11 groups with at least one third generation group. Some of the new groups had formed with family members on the outside. Jed shares how he and his co-laborers in the gospel left the prison in tears many a time because of the testimony and faith of those who were imprisoned physically but set free spiritually to worship, serve and love their Lord and Savior and to make disciples. They were grateful that someone took the time to come spend time with them. Often the prisoners (trainees) were the ones modeling to their trainers how to be bold and courageous and how to surrender their whole hearts to the King of kings through faithful obedience to His Word. Their zeal was contagious.

The Least, the Last and the Lost

We conducted other interviews for this article but unfortunately, the sensitivities of the workers involved do not allow us to publish their situations in detail. One of those ministries, for example, has seen over 200 baptisms in the past two years with generational growth of groups out to the fifth generation, all within the same holding facility. Now we know for a fact that God is not only capable of sparking DMM/CPM movements in prisons, jails, rehabilitation and recovery centers, but, in addition, He delights in saving the least, the last and  the lost and enlisting them into His global family business of multiplicative reconciliation and disciple-making. He uses ordinary, willing, faithful, available servants to spark the kindling.

Are you weary of sowing much seed on the infertile soils of the hardened path, the shallow rocky ground and thorny patches? Jesus said in Matthew 25, “When I was a prisoner and you visited me…” We are hearing anecdotal stories from many different places about how the Lord is working and moving mightily in the prisons and jails. But instead of going in and doing ministry for them, go and train them how to be disciples and make disciples using the effective proven multiplicative DMM/CPM tools and principles. Watch and see what He will do!

This is an article from the January-February 2021 issue: Home Grown Movements

Kingdom Movement Strategies in a Small/Medium-Sized Church Led by the Pastor

Kingdom Movement Strategies in a Small/Medium-Sized Church Led by the Pastor

Churches of 30, 100, or 700 all share some of the same challenges, despite appearances. They can experience tremendous growth spurts, which can in turn, create stress for staff and facilities. In addition, they are often still led by entrepreneurs who wield a lot of influence with church leadership. This creates some unique opportunities in relation to implementing Kingdom Movement (CPM/DMM) strategies in a new context.

In this article, we interview two CPM/DMM practitioners who have innovated, each in unique ways, in the context of small and medium-sized church congregations.

Our first exchange is with Tim Ahlen, the Pastor and Church Consultant with Forest Meadow Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.

DL:  Tim, I’ve heard you describe your church community as, “One church, multiple congregations.” Please tell us briefly why you use that phrase.

Tim: The Lake Highlands neighborhood of Dallas Texas is one of the most ethnically diverse neighborhoods in the DFW metroplex. We are a mixture of upper middle income second-generation-plus people whose primary language is “Texan English,” and middle to lower income immigrants and refugees—“New Americans”— who speak one of 75 other languages in their homes. What we have found, and firmly believe, is that every person deserves to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ in their heart language. Eighteen years ago we embarked on a church-planting strategy that would utilize our church facility to house multiple ethnic congregations. Each one maintains their autonomy, yet we partner together to accomplish what we cannot accomplish individually. As of 2020, we have six congregations—Oromo, Sudanese, Arabic, Kenyan, Burmese, Messianic Jewish, and English—partnering together in our facility at 9150 Church Rd. In addition to the churches that meet locally in our facility, we also have at least seven generations—over 165 congregations—whose spiritual roots come back to FMBC.

DL: It sounds like Forest Meadow had experienced several upheavals, including at least one church split and multiple personnel changes before you arrived in 2003. You spent the first year getting to know the church and the community, which seems pivotal, by the way. Then you prayerfully concluded that you wanted to challenge them to focus on church-planting rather than on church growth. Help us understand why you came up with that preference.

Tim: In my experience, church-planting is much more effective than church revitalization. New organizations grow more quickly and have much more flexibility than older ones. It’s easier and more fun having babies than resurrecting the dead. The rationale comes down to stewardship of resources. God gives us only so many resources with which to work. Our task is to figure out how best to utilize the resources God gives us to maximize our kingdom impact. The goal is to maximize the number of persons who spend eternity in Heaven. What I frequently say is that if I had put all of our energy and resources into church growth, I’ll bet I could have grown the one church to 150 in attendance. By focusing our resources on church- planting, we wound up with over 10,000 people worshiping in 165+ congregations scattered around the world. And that was in 2014. Who knows what it is in 2020?

DL: Well it sounds like it was a smart idea, looking back, because, since that time, you are able to count at least 165 different congregations across 7 generations of church growth in 8 different streams. We’re looking at a generational diagram (which reminds us of a mind map). Can you tell us approximately how many total participants might be involved today and give us some idea of the spread of cases in North America (recognizing you’ve had numerous churches planted overseas but this issue of Mission Frontiers is largely focused on North America)? Give us some examples of churches or groups in rural areas and maybe some which are in urban areas. Any idea how many states the movement has touched?

Tim: One of the realities we discovered is that the geographical paradigm we used to follow is not as important as it once was. To be sure whatever outreach we do has to begin in a place among people. But in today’s world, with technology and communication being what it is, geography is no longer a significant barrier. Evangelistic outreach now occurs in an affinity paradigm. In other words, while it must start someplace, once it starts, it moves according to relationships. This means that FMBC evangelized Sudanese refugees living in Dallas, who when evangelized other Sudanese refugees they knew who were living in other parts of the metroplex, who then evangelized Sudanese living in Sudan. Today there are churches in Brazil, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nepal, Cincinnati, Bulgaria, Dubai, Jordan, China, California, Houston, Buffalo, Queens and who knows where else, that are connected relationally to FMBC.

DL: This is just outstanding growth. Do these groups/churches mostly meet on Sunday or are some of them, for example, Tuesday night groups and the members attend another church on Sunday?

Tim: The house churches meet at various times. Many of those churches eventually become more traditional, and meet on Sundays. At the FMBC building, we have Bible study and worship services pretty much every day of the week.

DL: On the whole, what can you extract from the last 18 years and how did most of this growth happen? Was it mostly spontaneous or was it very intentionally planned? Were there 152 appointed pastors, or did some of these groups emerge from home Bible studies?

Tim: Of course God gets all the glory. I am not a super saint. I am not a charismatic, compelling personality. I am 67 years of age and need notes to get through a teaching/sermon with coherence so it is not a personality cult. Truth be told, very few people beyond our first generation of churches even know that I or FMBC exists. Having said that, we were very intentional in what we did.

Our intentions were to make our plans but then submit them to the Lord who orders our steps. Since we at FMBC were all culturally Westernized and linguistically limited, we knew needed Persons of Peace from the culture we were reaching to lead our efforts. And God provided them. We also knew that we did not have financial resources to support our efforts. So we employed strategies that did not require lots of outside resources (with the exception of TEAM Church—that’s another story).  Most of the churches started as we trained individuals or groups from the targeted people groups to follow the 2 Timothy 2:2 model—disciples training disciples who trained disciples.

DL: We’re excited about the record-keeping you’ve done. How have you managed to keep track of all this growth over the years?

Tim: We have not researched our impact since 2014. If what we have done follows a typical CPM/DMM, then the impact has probably doubled at least. But we would much rather start new works and reach Unreached People Groups than simply to develop bragging points. If anyone in your audience would like to volunteer to do the research, we would welcome them!

DL: If you were to share any lessons learned for other North American pastors or churches, what would you share? In other words, how are you doing this? How are you getting this to work so effectively?

Tim:

  1. Learn to listen to God. Pray! 
  2. Do what God says. Do!
  3. Minimize the distinction between evangelism and discipleship. Develop your own model. Don’t copy someone else’s!
  4. Your principles should come from three Bible passages:   a. Great Commission—make disciples of all nations.     b. Great Commandment—Love God. Love others as yourself.
  5. c. 2 Tim. 2:2—Make disciples who make disciples.
  6. Sacrifice whatever is not mandated biblically to get the job done. Travel light.
  7. If you are not hearing from God, go back to the last thing you heard Him say, and do that!


At the Cedar Ridge Christian Church in Broken Arrow, OK, Bryan King is the “Mobilization Pastor.” Bryan has been both patient and intentional in his quest to implement CPM/DMM strategies at Cedar Ridge, a church with an average weekend worship attendance of roughly 700 people on three campuses. Bryan told us that his church at first gave him latitude, but finally fell in love with Kingdom Movement (CPM/DMM) strategies. They’ve now made it their “core strategy of disciple-making.” Bryan has utilized the familiar discovery Bible study model. But he’s also utilizing “residencies” as well (learn more about these in this issue, Kingdom Movement Strategies in Non-Traditional Contexts).

DL: Bryan, you have a lot going on there in Broken Arrow and, in fact, all around greater Tulsa. How have you seen God work in relation to Kingdom Movement strategies?

Bryan: It really has energized our church and others in our context. We are now running six discovery-Bible study (DBS) groups among members at Cedar Ridge with roughly 75 people participating in all. We are also using DBS in some of our youth small groups as well though I don’t have the exact number on that.

DL: I’ve noticed you’ve also “spilled over” to help influence others in your town and city as well.

Bryan: Well, God does have a way of doing that. As He works in our context, word gets around. Outside our walls, we would need to count at least seven other groups across the city who are also using DBS with around 80 additional people participating in those. These numbers include three residencies.

DL: To me, this really shows that an “emerging megachurch” like Cedar Ridge could truly complement its vision to reach an entire range of communities that it might now have attracted to come to a building in one neighborhood and maybe might not have afforded to start multi-site campuses in all those locations, either.

Bryan: For sure. CPM/DMM approaches are perfect for those situations, Doug. Because they are so focused on people— and not as reliant on buildings, budgets, programs and staff—they are actually very easy to utilize as an expansion of a central site celebration service.

DL: And it doesn’t worry you that some of those people might never darken the door of your building?

Bryan: Not in the least. If we were only in this to build our own personal kingdom here, it might be a different story. But our leaders truly understand that it’s not about us as a church or about us as individual celebrities. It never was. It’s always been about Jesus. Once we get that squared away, starting a new group and turning it loose to multiply across town -- or across the world -- is equally as big of a win for kingdom growth as it is if we added another pew full of people under our roof here at the central site. CPM/DMM strategies are, in many ways, perfect companions for churches with a vision to multiply themselves many times over!

This is an article from the January-February 2021 issue: Home Grown Movements

Can Kingdom Movement Strategies Work in North America?

Can Kingdom Movement Strategies Work in North America?

The End Goal

Over the past few years, a not-so-quiet revolution has been sweeping across the world of frontier missions. That revolution involves movements—Kingdom Movements. They began popping up on our (David Garrison’s) radars in the 90s. We (David) defined movements as “rapidly multiplying indigenous churches planting churches that sweep across a people group or population segment.” For more on this, see my (David’s) book, Church Planting Movements, WIGTake Resources, 2004. For typical benchmarks you might look for parameters like:

•     1000 or more people coming to Christ,

•     In a relatively short period of time (12-18 months)—rapidly-multiplying—and

•     Four or more streams of growth in the same general city/region/tribe/people.

The phrase, “four or more streams,” can be understood as four or more genealogical “trees” that are separate but related (For more on movements and case studies, see, for example, my (David’s) A Wind in the House of Islam, Monument, CO: WIGTake Resources, 2014).

As of June, 2020, researchers have found evidence of 1,369 movements involving over 76 million people and 4.8 million groups or simple churches (see the dashboard at https://2414now.net/resources/). This data points to a sea change in missions. It represents the single most significant shift in global missionary strategy in the past century. Millions of new followers are glorifying Jesus Christ as divine and as the Lord of their lives. This is the end goal of missions and the Church. This is the purpose to which we’ve been called.

Among mission agencies, churches, and missionaries, initials like CPM (Church Planting Movement) and DMM (Disciple Making Movement) have become commonplace, sometimes used synonymously, while at other times defined by their differences. The truth is—there’s no one person or office defining strategies and approaches. One trainer once quipped to me, “The most effective training session will always be the one you just completed.” In fact, it’s tempting for every single implementer to conclude that his or her approach is the most biblical, most effective and most efficient way to go about it. Granted, part of this could be due to the fact that we are all experiencing different “edges” of kingdom growth—and they seldom look exactly the same in each and every case. As a result, ask five blind men to describe the elephant they’ve just touched—and you might get five different answers depending on which part of the elephant they touched—even though they all touched the same animal. So although we now have a fairly clear picture of the goal, there is a diversity of roles that humankind can play in setting the stage for the Holy Spirit to bring about a movement.

The Primacy of Prayer

In spite of variation in strategy and approach, however, it seems universally true across all spectrums that all these movements have begun by emphasizing prayer for the lost (Garrison, 2004). That’s probably the one key strategy upon which everyone agrees. In our (Doug’s) own agency (Team Expansion), we’ve actually started tracking how many hours we pray for the lost in each of our respective regions. Prayer has gone from being a ceremony before a meal or a two-minute prayer during a group worship service to becoming the primary start-up strategy in every field!

The Geography of Movements Thus Far

In spite of monumental growth around the globe, unfortunately, precious few (handfuls) of those movements are said to be taking place in the West (see the 24:14 Dashboard.1) Meanwhile, more and more churches have witnessed and are witnessing testimony after testimony of movements overseas. For this reason and others, it seems prudent to ask, “What strategies, if any, can foster CPMs/DMMs in North America? How can we remove the barriers for movements so that God’s Spirit might do, here, what He is doing elsewhere?” These are ongoing questions with no clear answers. Leaders of churches of all sizes are asking, “Is this approach going to work in North America?” They’ve learned the hard way to be ruthless and relentless in evaluating what they assume are new plans and programs. In reality, CPM/ DMM strategies are not gimmicks or even methods. They are life practices, strategies and biblical instructions. For this reason, it now seems more critical than ever that we define very carefully what we mean when we say, “CPM/ DMM strategies.”

Life Principles and Practices

If we grant that it’s a good thing to see many people come to Christ, then we pretty much have already accepted the fact that movements are good. The question then becomes, how might we encourage them here in North America? And, in general, how might we live, both individually and as a community, to foster movements globally? As we’ve previously mentioned, there are no universally accepted answers. But in writing this article, we polled literally hundreds of trainers and implementers. Humbly, we submit that CPM/DMM approaches generally seek to raise up vibrant groups of Christ-followers who, through mutual accountability, ask God to enable them to become disciples worth reproducing as they rapidly multiply solely through the power of His Holy Spirit— both around the block and around the world—disciples, leaders, groups or simple churches and movements.

Leading and Lagging Indicators

In studying economics, business researchers have categorized certain benchmarks by their timing. “Leading indicators” are events or practices that can predict future performance. Since they occur in advance of a particular economic change, one might actually shape an economic practice in hopes of bringing about a hopeful outcome. Leading indicators guide us in that process.
“Lagging indicators,” on the other hand, often occur after a change in the economy. They are a measure of success or failure and, as such, they are often out of our direct control (for more on this, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Economic_indicator). For our purposes then, lagging indicators are more of an indication that God has been at work in our midst.

Perhaps ,in living out the principles and life practices that might lead to CPM/DMM, we ought to take a page from economists.  We would like to propose that we focus more on the leading indicators and worry less about lagging indicators.  As humanking, we hvae no power over the lagging indicators.  We can’t “will” that the fruit will multiply over four generations. We can’t suddenly force 1000 to followChrist (certainrulers havetakenacrack at that, but it seems not to haveworked out all thatwell). We can’t manipulate people into forming 100 churches. These are typical “lagging indicators” signifying movements.

What we can do is talk about leading indicators. We can control how much we pray. We can make a decision (assuming we have enough determination) regarding how many times we share “our story” and/or “God’s story.” We can provide accountability structures for obedience to what people hear from the Lord and for passing on to others what God is teaching them. We can intentionally equip every believer to be self-feeding and reproducing in various ways. We can even decide how often we invite people to participate in a group (and how much we train others to do the same). All these factors are within our control. Through God’s power, we have had the opportunity to be a part of, witness, and/or study movements all over the planet. From all these experiences, if we’ve concluded anything, it has been that if we at least implement a set of these simple, reproducible leading indicator actions, we are doing our part. Our prayer must always be that God would choose to do the rest.

As We Pray, What Do We Do? Who Must We Be?

Thus far, we’ve pointed to the primacy of prayer. However, as North Americans, we also want to know what we can DO. Interestingly, it seems just as important, if not more so, to ask the question, what must we BE?   Here are some conclusions drawn by the 24:14 network. They apply to CPM/DMM strategies all over the world— and they would presumably also be helpful in North America. The 24:14 network defines a CPM/DMM approach as one in which:

  1. There is awareness that only God can start movements, but disciples can follow biblical principles to pray, plant and water the seeds that can lead to a book-of-Acts-type multiplying movement. Only God Can Make This Happen!
  2. The focus is to make every follower of Christ a reproducing disciple rather than merely a convert.
  3. Each follower develops behavioral patterns of frequent and regular accountability for obeying God’s instructions and passing them on to others in a loving environment. This requires a participative small-group approach.
  4. Each disciple is equipped in comprehensive ways (such as interpreting and applying Scripture, a well-rounded prayer life, functioning as a part of the larger Body of Christ and responding well to persecution/suffering) in order that they might function not merely as consumers, but as active agents of kingdom advance.
  5. Each disciple is given a vision both for reaching their relational network and for extending the kingdom to the ends of the earth with a prioritization on the darkest places (with a “no place left” mentality – Rom. 15:23). They are equipped to be able to minister and partner with others in the Body of Christ in both of these environments.
  6. Reproducing groups or simple churches are intentionally formed as a part of the multiplying disciples’ process. The intent in CPM/DMM approaches is that disciples, groups or simple churches, leaders and movements can multiply endlessly by the power of the Spirit.
  7. Emphasis is not on specific “tactics” but rather on the underlying biblical principles of multiplying Kingdom Movements.

Groups in a Greater Community Of Believers

Many practitioners of Disciple Making Movement strategies have now reported that these approaches work effectively when commencing outreach in a new area. The question we face in North America is largely—can they also work in and among established churches? They do seem to be in harmony with New Testament church multiplication. Many of the core principles seem best fitted to “small group communities,” but shouldn’t we be able to network these small groups as clusters within larger contexts (for example, a megachurch or a city-wide church network)? These communities, which would be made up of a collection of small-group gatherings, could then carry out key functions such as leadership development, interactive celebration and in-depth intercession at the larger regional or city level. Beyond this, when new movements are starting and are at the stage of self-standing small groups, it seems prudent here in North America to affirm their sufficiency in Christ and support the focus of empowering every disciple to be a disciple-maker.

In Summary: Our Greatest Responsibility Is in Removing the Barriers

Once again, because of the wisdom of focusing on function more than form, it’s crucial to underscore that, as humankind, all we can do is obey and endeavor to place ourselves in the center of God’s will. The goal is to remove as many barriers as possible in hopes that God will choose to work in our midst. We know that He can. We can’t predict exactly why or when He will do so. If He chooses to act, it will be because HE has made that choice. As a result, it’s important to clarify: We can’t “do CPM/DMM.” It seems a mistake even to use that phrase, “I’m going to do CPM/DMM.” CPM/DMM isn’t something we do. Only God can make a movement happen. Disciple Making Movements aren’t brought about by a methodology or a magic wand. They are a direct result of God’s Spirit. If this is our conclusion, then, the answer to the question in this article’s title has to be, most definitely, yes! Isaiah, the prophet, wrote that God will bring to pass whatever He has purposed to do. (Is. 46:10)

This is an article from the January-February 2021 issue: Home Grown Movements

Influencing Backwards?

Influencing Backwards?

This edition of Mission Frontiers is highlighting the growing dynamic of churches in the West that are trying to apply movement dynamics to their own ministry contexts. Each edition of MF tracks movement progress globally, of course, among the least reached. But this edition is looking back from such movements to the Western church context, and to the influence from so-called “fields” to the so-called “mission forces” (a questionable term I know, given today’s spiritual crisis in the West!).

My story … Part 1

Coming back from South Asia I took on the leadership of the small mission organization that had sent us. We had seen movements to Jesus emerge among a number of unreached peoples and began to reshape the vision of our mission agency around that. To do so would require a new way of training and so I developed with our emerging team an initial orientation called Horizons.
We grew and developed. People caught the vision of movements. And then? We realized we needed something more, we needed something to help those who were sent to the unreached figure out how to catalyze movements, not just plant churches. This was 2001-2002. What to use?

Part 2: From the field back … but for the field again

I decided to adapt the training we had been developing in South Asia. Training developed not just by me but by the first believers who were becoming leaders. “What if we trained westerners using the training we were giving for emerging movement leaders in and from South Asia?” We called it Catalyst. It was really helpful, but again it was designed for those going “over there” to serve, not for churches “here."

Part 3: What about “us?"

Then I was also asked to help with a church plant in California. It was a sort of tentmaking role, in some ways (word to the wise: don’t do church-planting as tent making if you want it to help support you! I ended up washing cars, doing the church plant, leading the agency, and traveling to South Asia!).

I decided to use Catalyst with our church-planting leadership. Then, as part of leading the agency, I was asked to lead a group of Kenyan pastors in Catalyst. I was a little cautious because the idea of using movement level training, developed in a frontier setting, to train a whole region of already settled denominational pastors, seemed a little beyond the scope of the Catalyst purpose.

Day three, the bishop of the group of 60 or 70 pastors stood up. I swallowed, thinking, “Okay, now he is going to tell us what he really thinks.” Instead, he said, “my brothers and sisters, how I wish we had learned these things and seen these things in our pastoral training…our churches would be movements.”

Influencing Backwards

This edition tries to describe how influence from movements is shaping what courageous leaders in churches are trying to do. While my focus, and the focus of MF, is always the frontiers, I believe that there is much for the West to learn and derive from the edges of where the gospel is growing.

May He grant tremendous fruit and wisdom, and may you be encouraged, perhaps encouraged enough to try some new things yourself!
Kevin

This is an article from the January-February 2021 issue: Home Grown Movements

DMM Strategies in Non-Traditional Contexts

DMM Strategies in Non-Traditional Contexts

North Americans have a reputation for innovation as several churches and individuals are finding unique ways to implement Kingdom Movement (CPM/DMM) strategies in North America and not all of them are relying on existing local churches.

Take Lee Wood  for instance. The moment he first learned about CPM/DMM strategies, he loved them. He began talking to and praying with down-and-outers on the streets of Tampa,  FL. These were people who were far from God—and light-years from existing church culture. Little by little, God began doing something in their lives. Within a few short weeks, Lee had started 60 groups single-handedly! He chuckles at himself these days.  “I didn’t even think about how busy that would make me. I didn’t even know I wasn’t supposed to try to do it all by myself. I just wanted to implement. Fortunately, I had a great mentor who refused to give up on me.” Today, researchers estimate that the “genealogical tree” that has resulted has now topped 3,000 new believers—and it’s still growing.

Keep in mind–Lee’s work didn’t really happen in the context of the local church. These were people who were pretty much off everybody’s radar. But CPM/DMM strategies shine in those circumstances.

Take Mark Aspinwall for instance. He first learned about CPM/DMM strategies in 2010 when he flew with Curtis Sergeant to a large island in the Pacific to help organize a series of trainings. He’s never been the same since. The next thing Mark knew, he was in charge of training for that island. If he was going to help with training them, he reasoned, he should be implementing it himself. He decided to start a group in his house and, well, the rest is history.

Talking with Mark, it’s hard to miss the fact that this CPM/DMM stuff is hard work. For his first group, he invited 16 families to a three-thirds group, only to have just one family show up. Mark laughs, “Fortunately, that family had 8 children and we had 4. It felt like a full house!” But in short order, 30 people were taking part in this thing Mark had started. Most of the 30 were teenagers. They desired fellowship. They loved visiting. “The kids picked it up faster than we did,” Mark says. “They had less to unlearn. We watched our own children, and their friends get serious about doing what Jesus says, and sharing it with others.”

With that as the basis, the group in Mark’s house had grown to 23. That’s not 23 people. That’s 23 groups!

Once again, this wasn’t really happening primarily in the context of a local church, though some of his participants did attend a local church on the side. International students at a nearby university turned out to be one of the most fruitful fields. Many wanted to practice English so Mark’s wife would patiently have conversation groups with them. From there, she would invite them to practice English by discussing stories from the Bible. And when they would return to nations like China or Argentina, Mark and his wife would keep on communicating with them and encouraging them. They didn’t do it for pay. This was “zero budget missions.” They did it because they felt that if they failed to do it, they would be failing as Jesus followers. So now, Mark “fishes Facebook.” He studies the Bible with people over Zoom. “With the pandemic,” he observes, “geography has pretty much been taken off the table.”

Today, Mark wistfully looks back at the last ten years of his life with an almost Charles Dickens’ mentality. “They’ve been the best of times—and they’ve been the worst of times.” He constantly says that he “fails forward.” For this reason, Mark understands why local pastors aren’t that excited about CPM/DMM strategies. “It doesn’t solve any of their problems,” Mark quips. “In fact,” he adds, “many of these groups might not ever walk in the door of a single traditional church building.” He’s probably right. And some church members will bow out, once they learn about the higher bar of commitment. To be a movement “doer” requires about six hours a week: two hours/week evangelizing, two hours/week with an existing group called “My Spiritual Family” and two hours/week starting a new group—the next generation. This is doable for someone with a job and a family; but not if they are also involved in lots of “big church” activities. For this reason, Mark theorizes that few “traditional church people” will ever migrate to CPM/DMM practices. “Once they take part in all their church programming, they probably realistically just don’t have time.” So Mark often finds himself talking to pastors of churches that his group members attend. He never asks the pastor to release them. But he does ask the pastor to “protect their time.” Mark clarifies, “He’ll need to tell the other church people, ‘This guy is doing exactly what we need him to do.’” If the pastor is willing, Mark believes it would be possible for existing church people to help advance a Kingdom Movement.

We  asked Mark if he were to have any words of wisdom for someone just starting out—what would they be?     He responded immediately. “Plan on it being hard. Every step of the way it’s hard. You have to share the gospel with a lot of people before one says yes. You have to train many before someone sticks. A few weeks on—they  stop answering your calls. Plan on experiencing a certain amount of alienation from the church people with whom you grew up. And for the first five years, it will be very up and down.” Mark remembers he’d  go through    a phase in which he’d become very excited because it would all be working—then the entire thing would crash. But even with all the challenges, he still explains, “These have been the most fruitful years of our entire lives.” He summed it all up this way: “The Great Commission is the primary mandate for every Christian. I finally feel like I’m following the mandate."

Jeff Timblin is a mobilizer for e3 Partners full-time in Orange County, California. He is also pastor of a “legacy church” which is incorporating these strategies. He loves the simple church. As he began to see people coming alive with these kingdom strategies, he essentially started a church in his living room as a kind of leadership pod that would multiply. He also worked with others, explaining what God is doing. Little by little, God raised up 13 gatherings in homes that Jeff refers to as a “gathering of churches.” Most recently, he’s started a “residency” program, like Bryan King, Justin, and Zach. They do two different residencies, one year each. These residencies are nearly a year long—like an internship. Several legacy churches have jumped on board, learning to utilize these residenci