Missions Blog for Churches

by Rev. Tim Keller

Introduction
The vigorous, continual planting of new congregations is the single most crucial strategy for 1) the numerical growth of the Body of Christ in any city, and 2) the continual corporate renewal and revival of the existing churches in a city. Nothing else—not crusades, outreach programs, para-church ministries, growing mega-churches, congregational consulting, nor church renewal processes—will have the consistent impact of dynamic, extensive church planting. This is an eyebrow-raising statement. But to those who have done any study at all, it is not even controversial.

The normal response to discussions about church planting is something like this:

1. We already have plenty of churches that have lots and lots of room for all the new people who have come to the area. Let’s get them filled before we go off building any new ones.
2. Every church in this community used to be more full than it is now. The churchgoing public is a “shrinking pie.” A new church here will just take people from churches already hurting and weaken everyone.
3. Help the churches that are struggling first. A new church doesn’t help the ones we have that are just keeping their nose above water. We need better churches, not more churches.

These statements appear to be common sense to many people, but they rest on several wrong assumptions. The error of this thinking will become clear if we ask, “Why is church planting so crucially important?”

Because—

A. We want to be true to THE BIBLICAL MANDATE

1. Jesus’ essential call was to plant churches. Virtually all the great evangelistic challenges of the New Testament are basically calls to plant churches, not simply to share the faith. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) is not just a call to make disciples but to baptize. In Acts and elsewhere, it is clear that baptism means incorporation into a worshipping community with accountability and boundaries (cf. Acts 2:41-47). The only way to be truly sure you are increasing the number of Christians in a town is to increase the number of churches. Why? Much traditional evangelism aims to get a “decision” for Christ. Experience, however, shows us that many of these decisions disappear and never result in changed lives. Why? Many, many decisions are not really conversions, but often only the beginning of a journey of seeking God (other decisions are very definitely the moment of a new birth, but this differs from person to person). Only a person who is being evangelized in the context of an ongoing worshipping and shepherding community can be sure of finally coming home into vital, saving faith. This is why a leading missiologist like C. Peter Wagner can say, “Planting new churches is the most effective evangelistic methodology known under heaven.” [1]

2. Paul’s whole strategy was to plant urban churches. The greatest missionary in history, St. Paul, had a rather simple, two-fold strategy. First, he went into the largest city of the region (cf. Acts 16:9, 12), and second, he planted churches in each city (cf. Titus 1:5-appoint elders in every town). Once Paul had done that, he could say that he had fully preached the gospel in a region and that he had no more work to do there (cf. Romans 15:19, 23). This means Paul had two controlling assumptions: a) that the way to most permanently influence a country was through its chief cities, and b) the way to most permanently influence a city was to plant churches in it. Once he had accomplished this in a city, he moved on. He knew that the rest that needed to happen would follow.

Response: “But,” many people say, “that was in the beginning. Now the country (at least our country) is filled with churches. Why is church planting important now?”

We also plant churches because—

B. We want to be true to THE GREAT COMMISSION. Some facts:

1. New churches best reach a) new generations, b) new residents, and c) new people groups. First (a) younger adults have always been disproportionately found in newer congregations. Long-established congregations develop traditions (such as time of worship, length of service, emotional responsiveness, sermon topics, leadership style, emotional atmosphere, and thousands of other tiny customs and mores) which reflect the sensibilities of long-time leaders from the older generations who have the influence and money to control the church life. This does not reach younger generations. Second, (b) new residents are almost always reached better by new congregations. In older congregations, it may require tenure of 10 years before you are allowed into places of leadership and influence, but in a new church, new residents tend to have equal power with long-time residents.

Last, (c) new socio-cultural groups in a community are always reached better by new congregations. For example, if new white-collar commuters move into an area where the older residents were farmers, it is likely that a new church will be more receptive to the myriad of needs of the new residents, while the older churches will continue to be oriented to the original social group. And new racial groups in a community are best reached by a new church that is intentionally multi-ethnic from the start. For example: if an all-Anglo neighborhood becomes 33% Hispanic, a new, deliberately bi-racial church will be far more likely to create “cultural space” for newcomers than will an older church in town. Finally, brand new immigrant groups nearly always can only be reached by churches ministering in their own language. If we wait until a new group is assimilated into American culture enough to come to our church, we will wait for years without reaching out to them.

[Note: Often, a new congregation for a new people group can be planted within the overall structure of an existing church. It may be a new Sunday service at another time, or a new network of house churches that are connected to a larger, already existing congregation. Nevertheless, although it technically may not be a new independent congregation, it serves the same function.]

In summary, new congregations empower new people and new peoples much more quickly and readily than can older churches. Thus they have always reached them with greater facility than long-established bodies, and always will. This means, of course, that church planting is not only for “frontier regions” or “pagan” countries that we want to see become Christian. Christian countries will have to maintain vigorous, extensive church planting simply to stay Christian!

2. New churches best reach the unchurched—period. Dozens of denominational studies have confirmed that the average new church gains most of its new members (60-80%) from the ranks of people who are not attending any worshipping body, while churches over 10-15 years of age gain 80-90% of new members by transfer from other congregations. [2] This means that the average new congregation will bring 6-8 times more new people into the life of the Body of Christ than an older congregation of the same size.

So although established congregations provide many things that newer churches often cannot, older churches in general will never be able to match the effectiveness of new bodies in reaching people for the kingdom. Why would this be? As a congregation ages, powerful internal institutional pressures lead it to allocate most of its resources and energy toward the concerns of its members and constituents, rather than toward those outside its walls. This is natural and to a great degree desirable. Older congregations, therefore, have a stability and steadiness that many people thrive on and need. This does not mean that established churches cannot win new people. In fact, many non-Christians will only be reached by churches with long roots in the community and the trappings of stability and respectability.

However, new congregations, in general, are forced to focus on the needs of its non-members simply in order to get off the ground. So many of its leaders have come very recently from the ranks of the un-churched that the congregation is far more sensitive to the concerns of the non-believer. Also, in the first two years of our Christian walk, we have far more close, face-to-face relationships with non-Christians than we do later. Thus a congregation filled with people fresh from the ranks of the un-churched will have the power to invite and attract many more non-believers into the events and life of the church than will the members of the typical established body.

What does this mean practically? If we want to reach our city, should we try to renew older congregations to make them more evangelistic, or should we plant lots of new churches? But that question is surely a false either-or dichotomy. We should do both! Nevertheless, all we have been saying proves that, despite the occasional exceptions, the only wide-scale way to bring in lots of new Christians to the Body of Christ in a permanent way is to plant new churches.

To throw this into relief, imagine Town A and Town B and Town C are the same size, and they each have 100 churches of 100 persons each. But in Town A, all the churches are over 15 years old. As a result, the overall number of active Christian churchgoers in that town shrinks, even if four or five of the churches get very “hot” and double in attendance. In Town B, 5 of the churches are under 15 years old, and they, along with several older congregations, are winning new people to Christ, but this only offsets the normal declines of the older churches. Thus the overall number of active Christian churchgoers in that town stays the same. Finally, in Town C, 30 of the churches are under 15 years old. In this town, the overall number of active Christian churchgoers will be on a path to grow 50% in a generation. [3]

Response: “But,” many people say, “what about all the existing churches that need help? You seem to be ignoring them.”

Not at all. We also plant churches because—

C. We want to continually RENEW THE WHOLE BODY OF CHRIST.

It is a great mistake to think that we have to choose between church planting and church renewal. Strange as it may seem, the planting of new churches in a city is one of the very best ways to revitalize many older churches in the vicinity and renew the whole Body of Christ. Why?

1. First, new churches bring new ideas to the whole Body. There is plenty of resistance to the idea that we need to plant new churches to reach the constant stream of new groups, generations, and residents. Many congregations insist that all available resources should be used to find ways of helping existing churches reach them. However, there is no better way to teach older congregations about new skills and methods for reaching new people groups than by planting new churches. New churches have freedom to be innovative, and they become the “research and development” department for the whole Body in the city. Often the older congregations were too timid to try a particular approach or were absolutely sure it would “not work here.” But when the new church in town succeeds wildly with some new method, the other churches eventually take notice and get the courage to try it themselves.

2. Second, planting new churches is one of the best ways to surface creative, strong leaders for the whole Body. In older congregations, leaders emphasize tradition, tenure, routine, and kinship ties. New congregations, on the other hand, attract a higher percentage of venturesome people who value creativity, risk, innovation, and future orientation. Many of these men and women would never be attracted or compelled into significant ministry apart from the appearance of these new bodies. Often older churches “box out” many people with strong leadership skills who cannot work in more traditional settings. New churches thus attract and harness many people in the city whose gifts otherwise would not be utilized in the work of the Body. These new leaders eventually benefit the Body in the city.

3. Third, new churches challenge other churches to self-examination. The success of new churches often challenges older congregations in general to evaluate themselves in substantial ways. Sometimes it is only in contrast with a new church that older churches can finally define their own vision, specialties, and identity. Often the growth of the new congregation gives the older churches hope that “it can be done,” and may even bring about humility and repentance for defeatist and pessimistic attitudes. Sometimes, new congregations can partner with older churches to mount ministries that neither could do by themselves.

4. Fourth, a new church may be an evangelistic feeder for a whole community. The new church often produces many converts who end up in older churches for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the new church is very exciting and outward facing but is also very unstable or immature in its leadership. Thus some converts cannot stand the tumultuous changes that regularly come through the new church and they move to an existing church. Sometimes the new church reaches a person for Christ, but the new convert quickly discovers that he or she does not fit the socio-economic make up of the new congregation, and gravitates to an established congregation where the customs and culture feels more familiar. Ordinarily, the new churches in a city produce new people not only for themselves, but for the older bodies as well.

Summary: Vigorous church planting is one of the best ways to renew the existing churches of a city, as well as the best single way to grow the whole Body of Christ in a city.

There is one more reason why it is good for the existing churches of the region to initiate or at least support the planting of churches in a given area.

We plant churches—

D. As an exercise in KINGDOM-MINDEDNESS

All in all, church planting helps an existing church the best when the new congregation is voluntarily “birthed” by an older “mother” congregation. Often the excitement, new leaders, ministries, members and income of a new church wash back into the mother church in various ways, strengthening and renewing it. Though there is some pain in seeing good friends and some leaders go away to form a new church, the mother church usually experiences a surge of high self-esteem and an influx of new enthusiastic leaders and members.

However, a new church in the community usually confronts churches with a major issue— the issue of kingdom-mindedness. New churches, as we have seen, draw most of their new members (up to 80%) from the ranks of the unchurched, but they will always attract some people out of existing churches. That is inevitable. At this point, the existing churches, in a sense, have a question posed to them: “Are we going to rejoice in the 80%—the new people that the kingdom has gained through this new church, or are we going to bemoan and resent the three families we lost to it?” In other words, our attitude to new church development is a test of whether our mindset is geared to our own institutional turf, or to the overall health and prosperity of the kingdom of God in the city.

Any church that is more upset by their own small losses rather than the kingdoms large gains is betraying its narrow interests. Yet, as we have seen, the benefits to older congregations of new church planting are very great, even if that may not be obvious initially.

SUMMARY

If we briefly glance at the objections to church planting in the introduction, we can now see the false premises beneath the statements. A. Assumes that older congregations can reach newcomers as well as new congregations. But to reach new generations and people groups will require both renewed older churches and lots of new churches. B. Assumes that new congregations will only reach current active churchgoers. But new churches do far better at reaching the unchurched, and thus they are the only way to increase the churchgoing “pie.” C. Assumes that new church planting will only discourage older churches. This is a possibility, but a new church, for a variety of reasons, is one of the best ways to renew and revitalize an older church. D. Assumes that new churches only work where the population is growing. Actually, they reach people wherever the population is changing. If new people are coming in to replace former residents, or new groups of people are coming in—even though the net population figure is stagnant—new churches are needed.

New church planting is the only way that we can be sure we are going to increase the number of believers in a city and one of the best ways to renew the whole Body of Christ. The evidence for this statement is strong—Biblically, sociologically, and historically. In the end, a lack of kingdom-mindedness may simply blind us to all this evidence. We must beware of that.

APPENDIX A: HISTORICAL LESSONS

If all this is true, there should be lots of evidence for these principles in church history—and there is.

In 1820, there was one Christian church for every 875 U.S. residents. But from 1860-1906, U.S. Protestant churches planted one new church for each population increase of 350 people, bringing the ratio by the start of WWI to just one church for every 430 persons. In 1906 over a third of all the congregations in the country were less than 25 years old. [4] As a result, the percentage of the U.S. population involved in the life of the church rose steadily. For example, in 1776, 17% of the U.S. population described themselves as “religious adherents,” but that rose to 53% by 1916. [5]

However, after WWI, especially among mainline Protestants, church planting plummeted, for a variety of reasons. One of the main reasons was the issue of “turf.” Once the continental U.S. was covered by towns and settlements and churches and church buildings in each one, there was strong resistance from older churches to any new churches being planted in “our neighborhood.” As we have seen above, new churches are commonly very effective at reaching new people and growing for their first couple of decades. But the vast majority of U.S. congregations reach their peak in size during the first two or three decades of their existence and then remain on a plateau or slowly shrink.6 This is due to the factors mentioned above. They cannot assimilate new people or groups of people as well as new churches. However, older churches have feared the competition from new churches. Mainline church congregations, with their centralized government, were the most effective in blocking new church development in their towns. As a result, the mainline churches have shrunk remarkably in the last 20-30 years. [7]

What are the historical lessons? Church attendance and adherence overall in the United States is in decline and decreasing. This cannot be reversed in any other way than in the way it originally had been so remarkably increasing. We must plant churches at such a rate that the number of churches per 1,000 people begins to grow again, rather than decline, as it has since WWI.

Dr. Timothy Keller is the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, New York City, and continues to serve that congregation as senior pastor.

1 C. Peter Wagner, Strategies for Growth (Glendale: Regal, 1987), p. 168.
2 Lyle Schaller, quoted in D. McGavran and G. Hunter, Church Growth: Strategies that Work (Nashville:Abingdon, 1980), p. 100. See C. Kirk Hadaway, New Churches and Church Growth in the Southern Baptist Convention (Nashville:Broadman, 1987).
3 See Lyle Schaller, 44 Questions for Church Planters (Nashville: Abingdon, 1991), p.12. Schaller talks about “The 1% Rule.” Each year, any association of churches should plant new congregations at the rate of 1% of their existing total—otherwise, that association will be in decline. That is just “maintenance.” If an association wants to grow 50%+, it must plant 2-3% per year.
4 Ibid, pp.14-26.
5 Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, The Churching of America 1776-1990 (New Brunswick: Rutgers, 1992) p.16.
6 Schaller, 44 Questions, p.23.
7 See Schaller’s case that a lack of church planting is one major cause of the decline of mainline Protestantism. Ibid, p.24-26. Finke and Stark show how independent churches, such as the Baptists, who have had freedom to plant churches without interference, have proliferated their numbers. Churching, p.248.

This article is available in .pdf format for easier reading and printing by clicking here.

by Dr. Paul Kooistra

Much has been written and discussed in recent years about church-planting movements. There is also significant debate about just what it is. It has proven an elusive subject to describe with precision or finality.

What follows is not intended to be definitive, but rather is an attempt to move us toward a more complete and accurate understanding regarding the key characteristics of a churchplanting movement. I hope that it deepens our understanding and agreement, and as a result spurs us to further dialogue and action.

A DEFINITION

A church-planting movement (CPM) is a God-glorifying, God-centered work of His grace whereby the Holy Spirit energizes indigenous leaders to plant a cluster of churches with a common vision and purpose to reproduce themselves often by means of evangelizing and discipling a specific region or people group.

Such movements balance orthodoxy, unity, and liberty and are built upon indigenous structures and institutions as well as local funding and, especially, native worship. The focus of these movements is the transformation of all of life by encouraging the fulfillment of a culture’s highest good through the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

COMMENTARY

Church-Planting Movement: Donald McGavran coined the concept of “people movements” to Christ in his landmark book The Bridges of God first published in the United Kingdom by World Dominion press, 1955. Basic to his argument was the opinion that Western Christianity, because of its dominant individualistic world and life view, is blinded to how most people come to Christ. Historically, the vast majority of converts have come in groups, tribes, villages, ethnic groups, as a single unit. Chuo Wee Hiar writes, the Western self-conscious states, “I think, therefore I am.” For most of the rest of the world it is, “I participate, therefore I am.” [1]

People Movements: Don McGavran argued that people movements have five considerable advantages. First, they create permanent churches in many places through the movement of God’s Spirit. Second, they are naturally indigenous. Third, they are a spontaneous and natural expansion of the church. Fourth, they have enormous possibility for growth. The fifth advantage is that these movements provide a sound pattern of becoming a Christian. People and their environment change through the gospel from the inside out.

God-glorifying/God-centered: A CPM cannot be built on the foundation of missiology, church-planting methodology, cultural anthropology, or any other important discipline. As David Garrison writes, “…a church-planting movement is not an end in itself. The end of all of our efforts is for God to be glorified.” [2] I would further argue that any kingdom work that is not totally dependent on God with a single purpose of magnifying Christ will, in the end,
be found hollow and with little enduring existence.

Holy Spirit: Gary Waldecker has written a very excellent book entitled Toward a Theology of Movements: Missiology from a Kingdom Perspective. This is a fine work which I believe could be widely useful. He develops a theology of movements around seven subordinate movements. The third, the outward movement, is a work of God’s Spirit whereby we drink of Christ, and one small sip produces whole rivers which flow out of us to bless those around us. Gary states,

The task before us is not difficult—it is impossible. However, the Lord will do the impossible through us. As the Lord commanded the man with the withered hand to stretch it out, as He commanded the paralytic to stand and walk, and as He commanded Peter to walk to Him on the water, so we must attempt the impossible, trusting only in the supernatural power of Christ, refusing dependence on “safer” methods. This is the work that can only be accomplished in the power of the Holy Spirit. [3]

Indigenous: One of the most important, if not the most important element of a CPM, is that it is mainly indigenous. For a church to impact a culture, it must be of that culture. This seems from the beginning to be built into God’s design for His body on earth—the Church. Modern students of New Testament manuscripts first thought that the Greek, which was much corrupted from Classical Greek, was the consequence of human errors caused by many years of copying error. Not until Egyptian papyrus manuscripts were studied, did scholars realize that New Testament Greek was simply the common marketplace language of the day. In other words, God’s holy and inspired Word was written in the common “indigenous” Greek of the marketplace. A church movement must be no less indigenous.

First, in the development of leadership, God does not work outside of people, and He always raises up leaders within any people He is working. It is for this reason that a biblical pattern for ministerial training is best served when it is an integral part of real ministry. To take men out of a certain sub-culture and train them in an academic seminary so removes them from the people they came from that they often cannot reach these same people when they return. Secondly, the church must have indigenous direction. A culture is transformed by those who understand, love, and can critique that culture. Culture is so much a part of who we are and what we think that, like language, those who develop within its bounds will better understand its nuances. Finally, for a church to last, it must be indigenously supported. History is full of examples of unhelpful dependence. This does not mean that there is not a place for outside financial assistance. Chapters eight and nine of II Corinthians are all about the churches of Macedonia giving to help the church in Jerusalem. Outside giving must be strategic giving, and cannot replace or supercede indigenous giving. If it does, then when that funding no longer exists, the structures of the church will also cease.

A cluster of churches within a specific people or region with a common vision: Some have criticized any emphasis such as this as unbiblical. It is no doubt true that to be the body of Christ, an exclusionary goal for a church cannot be tolerated. If, on the other hand, the singleness of focus is for outreach to a people that need evangelization and discipling, then it makes a lot of sense. Things usually don’t happen until someone gives his or her full attention to the matter. In the same manner, a people is usually not reached until someone says, “This is my passion. I will give my life to reach these people.”

Reproducing: George Patterson, who has specialized in church multiplication, teaches that healthy churches are “born to reproduce.” [4] Such churches emphasize obedience to Christ and the training of leaders who believe that ministry is always reaching out. The Spirit-led church focuses on those outside, not inside, the church. It is not an accident that the Great Commission reveals the last words of Christ to His Church. This is the purpose of the Church. To rivet the energy of the Church inward can only lead to spiritual constipation.

Balance: A church must be structured exclusively according to God’s word. The church belongs to Him, and He alone has the authority to call it into existence and to shape it for the purpose of reflecting His holy character. When churches add either the best notions or desires of men to biblical orthodoxy, they soon reflect the earthly culture they are a part of and little of the heavenly ethos for which they were created. At the same time, orthodoxy must not kill biblical unity and love. Christ says that a new law or command will rule His kingdom: “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 13:34-35). Doctrine and unity cannot trump one another. They must serve one another, and a church with no love is no more a biblical church than is a church that ignores scriptural teaching to embrace the philosophies of men. Finally, a church must possess liberty. Church-planting movements have always had elements of surprise in them. As we have already stated, we cannot dictate to the Holy Spirit how He will proceed. Worship, fellowship, and structures must reflect Scripture, but in the eternal wisdom of the Holy Spirit they will also reflect the culture. God, whose nature cannot be fully measured, is also the God of variety.

Fulfillment of a culture: Here the choice of words reflects the debate over how culture and faith intersect and even overlap. This is never an easy question. In the Jerusalem Council Paul uses the argument, in opposition to the Judaizers, that not even Titus, who was with Paul, was compelled by the apostles to be circumcised (Galatians 2:3). Paul claims Titus has become a living example that the gospel and the culture were in conflict. Nevertheless, earlier in Paul’s ministry, he had Timothy, his other son in Christ, circumcised in order to enhance the gospel within the culture (Acts 16:3). When does one take a prophetic posture, challenging the culture for the sake of the gospel, and when does one accommodate the culture for the sake of the gospel? Obviously, this is not always an easy decision, and one needs all the wisdom of God’s Word and the guidance of His Holy Spirit. We must acknowledge that the question of culture is a very sensitive issue today within the world of missions. In the past I have used the phrase, “change culture,” but this suggests a lack of appreciation for a culture in which the gospel is preached. Such an emphasis can also have the effect of making the gospel look foreign and hostile to the customs and history of an indigenous people. Phrases such as “penetrate” or “impact” have seemed to me to be more acceptable, but they also contain a somewhat “in your face” connotation as one considers the dynamics of faith and culture. The phrase “fulfillment of a culture” may help us to get closer to a biblical perspective on this issue. Obviously if the gospel is God’s redeeming work within His fallen creation, then all of life, including culture, must be somehow altered by this mighty act of God. I am suggesting that when God calls His creation back to Himself, He intends not to destroy that creation, but to restore it to its original glory. Therefore, when the gospel affects a culture, that culture is moved toward all that it was intended to be. Life is elevated, liberty is heartened, government serves, integrity is valued; even the environment is more universally enjoyed and protected. Human cultures, all of them, were affected by the fall. The gospel reverses that decay.

Dr. Paul Kooistra served as president of Covenant Theological Seminary from 1983 – 1994, and since that time has served the PCA as Coordinator of Mission to the World.

1 Chuo Wee Hiar, “Evangelization of Whole Families,” Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, Edited by Ralph D. Winter and Steven G. Hawthorne, 1999, p. 615
2 byhisgrace.com/wortega/CPM.htm, William Ortega
3 Gary Waldecker, Toward a Theology of Movements: Missiology from a Kingdom Perspective (summary version), p. 14
4 George Patterson, “The Spontaneous Multiplication of Churches,” Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, Edited by Ralph D. Winter and Steven Hawthorne, p. 604

This article is available in .pdf format for easier reading and printing by clicking here.

by Rev. Paul Taylor

“All important decisions are made under the mango tree.” So goes the old Filipino saying. On a Sunday afternoon in May of 1993, three missionaries, six Filipino men, and one Filipino woman met under a mango tree to study the Bible. This tree was in Kuya Benji’s yard, in the peaceful country village of Talang. Floating like an island in a sea of bright green rice fields, under the watchful eye of Mount Arayat, Talang embodies all that is typical of the Filipino country village—strong family relationships, peaceful rural setting, hard-working people and strong (albeit misled) religious convictions.

This Bible study under the mango tree was the first gathering in the initial church-planting work of MTW-Philippines. Kuya Rap sat next to me with his huge Catholic Bible opened in his lap, continually interrupting with good questions that helped all to think more deeply about the gospel message that was being told. Rap, Benji, and the others present invited friends for the next week. By the third week about 20 were gathered, and following the invitation that day, six made commitments to follow Christ. These were the first believers in what was to become Talang Bible Christian Church. That church became the first of many in what we trust will eventually become a strong Reformed and covenantal church planting movement. It all began under the mango tree.

In the nine years since those first meetings under Benji’s mango tree, more than fifty church planting projects have begun. The vast majority of churches have survived and become part of the Presbyterian Church of the Philippines.

A VISION IS BORN

On a Sunday in 1990, Sarah and I were quietly sitting in worship at Parkview PCA in Lilburn, Georgia, when the Lord spoke to each of us separately urging us to commit to foreign missions. At that time Sarah was enjoying life serving on the staff of Intown Community Church (PCA), and I was serving as Coordinator of Church Planting for Mission to North America. We were both very content in our work, and would have enjoyed staying there forever. After the service, however, we compared notes and concluded that indeed the Lord was calling to us pursue opportunities overseas. So we began discussions with MTW leadership about our future.

As we were meeting with John Kyle one day, he suggested that Manila, Philippines, might be a good spot for us. Soon we found ourselves in a plane that was landing in Manila for a two-week exploratory trip that was to change the course of our entire future ministry. During those two weeks Filipino church leaders and mission leaders unanimously expressed that the greatest need was not more schools, not more evangelistic meetings, but more churches. Given our twenty-three years of experience in church planting, we felt confirmed in our decision to move to Manila.

June 1992 was the month we arrived. Immediately we started fifteen months of language and cultural acquisition. It was eleven months into that study that the mango tree Bible study was held, resulting in the first church. During language study we also committed to working with Pastor Bob Enoya to develop churches around Taal Lake, two hours south of Manila. And Pastor Dado Fonacier asked us to be his consultant in a new church-planting work on the campus of the University of the Philippines in Los Banos.

But all of these works—Talang, Taal, and Los Banos—were in rural or small-town settings, and we knew that our main focus should be on Manila’s 12 million people—now estimated at 13.6 million. So in January of 1994, we moved into the city, knowing it was God’s plan, but not knowing the strategy.

A VISION FOR THE CITY

Pastor Dado asked me to preach at Los Banos on Sunday, February 6, 1994. Arriving there the night before, I stayed with a member family overnight. In the morning while having devotions and preparing to speak, the strategy for the future suddenly became clear. It was almost as if the Lord had spoken out loud:

• Thrust to the City—starting 25 churches in Metro Manila, with each starting a daughter church within four years from its first public worship service.
• Thrust to the Province—starting 25 churches in the provincial areas, with each starting a daughter church within four years from its first public worship service.
• Thrust to the World—sending out 20 Filipino missionaries to cross-cultural or overseas places of service before the work became 10 years old.

As I shared this with the team at the next team meeting, this strategy was adopted.

During our language study time we had spent much time networking with Filipino church leaders and mission leaders. And since some Korean missionaries were forming the Presbyterian Church of the Philippines, we built bridges to and developed relationships with the leaders of this young denomination. In addition we had asked four key Filipino leaders to be an advisory board for us. As we made our strategy known, those leaders we had befriended referred some potential Filipino church-planting pastors to us.

To guide our recruiting, we developed several key commitments:

• We would start Reformed and covenantal churches, and thus needed pastors with those commitments.
• Every new church would be started with a Filipino senior pastor from day one.
• The target audience was the professional and business community of Manila.
• We would seek the best church-planting pastors possible.
• In order us to recruit the best pastors, for them to be free of care and able to focus on their work, they would be well-supported.
• Our financial support would be short-term, reducing each year, and for three years only.
• We would develop careful and intensive training and supervision.
• Each church planter would pass some level of presbytery exams before becoming an MTW church planter.

Those early days were heady and exciting ones. February 22, 1994 was the first of the monthly pastors’ fellowship meetings that have continued until this day. These monthly meetings have become the heart of the work—times of fellowship, prayer, instruction, building “esprit de corps,” and planning.

A COMMITMENT TO EVANGELISM

The first two urban church-planting pastors were placed and began their work in April. We had learned through networking that developing Evangelistic Bible Studies (EBS) was the most effective means of finding people to start a new church. The church planter would find people for the studies through referral or his own door-to-door work.

Pastor Edwin Roxas was the first of the urban church planters. Edwin made a commitment to himself and the Lord that he would spend three hours each day out on the streets “finding people.” After the first day he called me and said, “This is such hard work!” To encourage him, I spent the next few days doing it with him. As he discovered that he was more effective than I was, his commitment strengthened. Within two weeks he was leading twelve Evangelistic Bible Studies each week. This became typical of the future church planters as well.

Our plan was for each EBS to run about ten to twelve weeks, after which the converts participated in what we called a “Foundational Bible Study.” The initial EBS was discontinued and the process would begin again with more door-to-door work and referrals, resulting in new Evangelistic Bible Studies. The Foundational Bible Study was given that name because it was the foundation for the new church which would begin to hold worship in due time.

In time, we discovered that most who made genuine professions of faith (people whose lives were obviously changed) never found their way into our churches. That told us that if we wanted one hundred members in a new church, approximately 400 to 500 would have to come to Christ before those one hundred would find our church. Consistent, persistent, ongoing, never-ending evangelism become the byword of the church-planting work.

Constant encouragement and close supervision were crucial to the effectiveness of the work. We found with experience that each missionary supervisor could only adequately oversee four or five works. In our weekly time with each church-planting pastor we would spend three or four hours doing what was most needed in that project—making new contacts, meeting with and developing leaders in the church, consultation with the pastor, etc.

Typically it would take 12 months of this sort of work for each new congregation to be ready for its first public worship service. These first public services became great landmarks for each church.

A HALLMARK OF TRAINING

In addition to extensive evangelism, intensive training soon became a hallmark of the work. Some was formal training. Pastors who came to us from outside the Presbyterian Church of the Philippines were required to take 24 units of study at Presbyterian Theological Seminary. And the few who hadn’t yet completed at least a Bachelor of Theology degree were required to do so.

Some training was informal training. This took the form of church-planting seminars at the beginning and after each six months of a pastor’s service. Informal training also took place through instruction at the monthly pastors’ fellowship and occasional special seminars. And lots of one-on-one training occurred in interviews with potential church planters and in weekly consultative meetings.

Three ministries have been emphasized since they are crucial to the Filipino situation:

• Mercy: About 50% of Filipinos live in poverty and have great medical, nutritional, and other basic needs. We have come to realize that in a country where poverty abounds, mercy ministry must also abound in the church. A church that is not involved in mercy ministry is marginalized, viewed as a church concerned only for itself—a church without a heart. So our churches have been encouraged to develop nutritional ministries, ministry to street children and medical ministries, all accompanied, of course, with biblical instruction and evangelism. All of these mercy activities are expanding into effective programs with many churches involved in each.
• Missions: Filipinos are very adaptable people, easily learn languages, can live frugally, and understand Asian, Latin, and Western culture. They make great missionaries. This sending aspect will be a great part of the future of the work.
• Multiplication: Bob Logan, the church growth guru, tells us that if a church hasn’t planted its first daughter church within three years, it probably never will. We have amended that standard a bit, encouraging the new churches to start a daughter church within four years of its first public worship service. Of the first 50 churches, 36 were mother churches, 11 were daughter churches and three were granddaughter churches.

A LOOK AHEAD

After the initial four years of work, more and more Filipinos were placed in leadership. Five church-planting pastors were given the role of supervisor, so that these men are now doing most of the supervision. Many have become moderators, chairmen, and members of General Assembly and presbytery committees.

What will the future hold? Will this work really become a Reformed and covenantal church-planting movement, fully led and moved along by Filipino leadership? Will a great number of new Filipino Christians be mobilized for world missions? Will the Presbyterian Church in the Philippines become a dynamic church, molding the thinking of Filipino society? But above all, will the Lord’s name be honored and glorified in the minds and hearts of more and more Filipino people? This is our prayer—that the Church may grow out from under the mango tree, and on to the ends of the earth for the honor and glory of our King.

Rev. Paul Taylor is MTW’s International Director for Asia. He was formerly Church Planting Director for Mission to North America, and he and his wife, Sarah, are missionaries to the Philippines.

This article is available in .pdf format for easier reading and printing by clicking here.

We affirm the contextualization of the local church according to biblically valid and culturally indigenous forms.

God delights in the diverse cultural expressions of worship and service of His people throughout the world. Our efforts must encourage the contextualization of ministry according to indigenous, ethnic expressions, through serving and facilitating national believers. We also affirm the universal truths of Scripture, which has authority over all cultures and peoples and must never be compromised.

GOD’S HANDIWORK IN CULTURE

God’s Creativity
Missions efforts should support the development of cultural expressions of worship and ministry. This is not primarily a practical commitment, though certainly such considerations will likely result in a broader acceptance of the gospel. The motivation for encouraging cultural diversity of religious forms is a theological one—God is a God of creativity and diversity. Just as He takes pleasure in the variety of flowers He has made, so does He positively delight in the assortment of cultures He has created. God celebrates biblically valid, ethnic expressions of worship and ministry. Following are a few of the many verses where the variety of people groups are called to praise the one true God:

• Praise the Lord, all you nations; extol him, all you peoples. (Psalm 117:1)
• All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him. (Psalm 22:7)
• In that day you will say, “Give thanks to the Lord, call on His name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that His name is exalted.” (Isaiah 12:4)
• After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.” (Revelation 7:9-10)
• Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed. (Revelation 15:4)

Contextualization in Ministry
The missionary’s role, then, is to encourage nationals to express God’s work in them in ways that reflect their heart language and culture. This is a difficult task, one that requires humility, patience, and great wisdom. In missions circles, one of the most contentious debates relates to where ministry should fall on a spectrum of contextualization.

For example, on one end of the spectrum is the non-contextualized ministry that takes no consideration of the local culture. Religious material, including worship elements, may be in forms completely unfamiliar to the ethnic context. This can easily happen, for example, when a Western church wants to translate material that has been well-received in the home church. However, many phrases or illustrations make little sense to a person from another culture. More subtly, the author’s thought patterns may be hard to follow. In such cases, the material reinforces the idea that Christianity is a foreign religion, and God is foreign as well. The influence of Western churches tends to fall on this end of the continuum.

On the other end of the spectrum, a ministry may so want to identify with the local culture that the distinctions of Christianity get watered down. For example, the deity of Christ may be de-emphasized in an Islamic culture, or the exclusiveness of Christ in a Hindu context. Either way, the ministry begins to take on syncretistic forms.

Supporting churches should be aware of these issues and gauge their involvement between these extremes. The emphasis, though, should be on identifying forms of worship and ministry that flow out of the heart language of the local culture, thereby celebrating the richness of the Creator of all mankind. All such efforts to contextualize ministry must begin with a deepening understanding of the culture, and partnerships would do well to become “students” of the culture they seek to serve.

This article is available for easier reading and printing in .pdf format by clicking here.

by Seth Wallace

“It has changed my life to know men who are really willing to die for Christ.” That statement was made to us recently during an office staff meeting, by one of our missionaries who has worked among Muslims for many years. I’ll call him “Carl.”

Carl made that statement in the context of talking about an increase in conflict and suffering among Christians in Muslim-dominant countries. And even though any of us could make a statement like that, it meant something coming from Carl. He’s authentic, the real deal. He has been working among Muslims since the 80’s. More than that, in the past year, three people he has known have died for their faith.

The increase in conflict and suffering actually stems from some very good things. Up until 10-15 years ago, little fruit was seen among missionaries to Muslims. Many would serve an entire career and see just a few, if any, conversions. It was a hard work.

Today the work is no less difficult, but the fruit is increasing. In one North African country, just 15 years ago there were possibly only 200 believers. Now the estimates are between 2,500 and 5,000. In a recent survey in the Middle East, it was found there were more Muslim background believers (MBB) than traditional historic Christians.

Historically, when a Muslim came to faith in Christ, he was not open about it and would often try to stay under the radar. This made discipleship very difficult. Now, these MBBs desire to be trained. They want to see churches planted and they want to do the work. They are more open and more bold. Thus comes the conflict and suffering. 200 secretive and quiet MBBs were not a threat. 5,000 bold MBBs who are being trained and planting churches are a threat. And their very lives are at stake for it.

Another country Carl mentioned was in West Africa. There they had seen only 2 new churches started after years of work. Then 7-8 years ago the tide turned. There are now 24 churches and more than 3,000 believers. Before, the MBBs there did not want to share the Gospel. Today they do. This desire to evangelize, to be trained, and to plant churches among MBBs was simply not present 10 years ago, according to Carl.

The complications are many, however. MBBs are not immediately welcomed by national Christians for fear that they too may be persecuted. MBBs do not have their own norms for worship and practice, only what they have adopted from other cultures. More MBBs means more resistance from Muslims in these regions. Persecution will increase. People will die for their faith in Christ.

The PCA can make a difference. Carl mentioned specifically that the PCA offers some of the best theological training. We need to continue to send trainers, make use of technology for training, and remain committed to this role. “They are hungry for it,” says Carl.

What we don’t have is an abundance of are people willing to go and “tough it out in the desert.” It is not an either/or conundrum. We need men to do theological training, but we also need people to go and serve, sometimes in creative roles. It isn’t a job for the weak, the comfortable, or the selfish. We need men and women who love Christ and want to see his fame spread to the ends of the earth. We need men and women who love Christ more than their A/C, their Honda, and their hi-def TV.

The result will be Muslims coming to faith, MBBs being trained, and church planting movements spreading throughout the Muslim world. Furthermore, MBBs will gain their own identity, something that Carl says is beginning to happen. They are starting to see their own theologians, missiologists, and other leaders emerge. These men will help to develop what it means to worship and live as a MBB. “The emerging MBB church is the front line movement for what will be the number one major conflict in years to come.  Whether you see that conflict as a conflict between Islam and the West or Islam and the Church, it is a conflict that is not going away and will only escalate.  The emerging MBB church brings covenant grace to the heart of the Muslim world and I think it will have the sort of impact that believers had in the fall of the communist block,” states Carl. He recounts one leader in our Muslim ministry saying, “we hear from historians and news reports how Reagan brought down the communist block but what is not heard is the impact that waves of workers and the Christians they saw raised up had in the days leading up to the fall.”

Seth Wallace is a Church Resourcing Representative for Mission to the World (MTW).

The following video provides a glimpse at the spiritual darkness in Europe. So many have given up on Europe, considering it a “reached” place, and instead favoring places considered “unreached.”

Even though it’s over a year old, it was timely (at least for me) to recently read an article by the ministry 9marks. It’s not directly related to your missions ministry, or maybe it is. You may or may not agree with everything in it. By I think you will find it provoking, and possibly helpful in understanding a current trend. Here is a blurb from the article, which you can read in its entirety here:

I spent a month in a former Soviet republic two years ago, living with a missionary family. The entire month I strategized to pour myself out for the kingdom. For instance, I developed a friendship with one non-Christian man who wanted to attend an American business school and then return to his country and help it economically. He had spent a year studying for the GMATs, but could not yet afford to pay the registration fee. I forget what the fee was – $200 maybe? On an American income, that’s nothing. On my friend’s income, it would have cost him three or four months of labor. So I happily paid the fee for him (and congratulated myself on doing so). Praise God, my friend is presently at business school in the United States, and has now been baptized as a believer by a local church. I was not the principal witness in his life, but I trust that God used me to play one small part.

Yet here’s the point, and the question you should ask me: Jonathan, have you ever randomly given $200 to a non-Christian friend in the United States as a display of friendship and Christ’s love? Sadly, the answer is no. Too much of the time, I’m just a resident, not a missionary, more interested in buying books, cds (no, I don’t have an ipod), a nice dinner, and just a little bit more automobile or house. Yet imagine how the non-Christians around us would respond if we Christians became known for regular acts of generosity? We shouldn’t do it for the world’s favor; we should do it accompanied by a verbal explanation of the gospel of Jesus Christ…keep reading.

by Dr. Paul Kooistra

Mission to the World, as an arm of the Presbyterian Church in America, a confessional church, does Reformed and covenantal missions around the world. The Reformed faith, in its simplest definition, is God-centered faith. God alone is the source of all that exists and everything that exists does so for the glory of Him alone.

At the heart of what it means to be Reformed are the doctrines of grace. Central to these doctrines are the utter helplessness of man and the absolute trustworthiness of God. We should not forget that the doctrines of grace produce the virtues of the Christian life—love, humility, understanding, and compassion. By emphasizing these Christian virtues as an important aspect of what it means to be Reformed, we can develop a posture of being Reformed in theology and character in a warm and winsome way.

The great doctrine of sovereign grace, the truth that God saves men, is foundational to a theological understanding of missions. Neglect of this truth, which is found in the Scriptures and summarized in our confessional standards, cripples missions and reduces it to a human enterprise, seeking to “help” God. Missions is a divine enterprise, wherein God commands and graciously accepts the obedient participation of man. When people respond to the gospel, it is neither because of their responsiveness nor because of the obedience of the missionary; it is because God found them that they are responsive. The truth that God chooses His people, some believe, discourages missions. On the contrary, this truth is the only real ground for missions.

The Reformed faith also teaches the finitude and sinfulness of our estate. It underlines our absolute dependence on the Spirit of God to bring regeneration to those we long to see embrace Christ. Nothing is more exciting than to see someone come to faith. When God is pleased to use us as His instruments to bring about new life in His people, we are well aware of the fact that it is God’s Spirit alone that can bring regeneration, repentance, and faith.

We believe that man is totally depraved, that is, that he cannot produce any spiritual life that would move him toward God. We shall, therefore, marvel far more in our own salvation, which is beyond our comprehension and is fully a gracious act from a loving God. We also understand in a deeper way that disobedience characterizes every part of a culture: politics, art, and social life as well as religious life. Total depravity underlines the importance of understanding a culture and all of its parts in order to bring the gospel to the people of that culture. We do not, however, put our faith in our strategic plans, but are open to what God will do with us and through us as His ambassadors.

We believe in unconditional election. We, therefore, look more to Christ and His gospel message for our mission activity and far less to the gifts that He has given us or to the environment in which we work.

We believe in limited atonement. We, therefore, have a far greater sense of belonging to God and believing that the One who created the universe also created us and saved us to be His kingdom instruments in this world. Rather than limiting our efforts to bring the gospel to others, acceptance of this truth compels us to scatter the seed wherever we can, believing that God has chosen His people in every tongue, tribe and nation.

We believe in irresistible grace. We do not, therefore, run from those places where missionary activity seems very difficult. God calls some to plow in concrete and others to turn fertile soil that was prepared in the past by others. Reliance on His Spirit’s guidance is an antidote to our fleshly desire only to concentrate our efforts where it is easy to plant churches and where we see a large response to the gospel.

We believe in the perseverance of the saints. Our activities, therefore, have a great measure of the joy of eternity and the everlasting fellowship we share with God. We entrust those whom God has brought to faith far more into His hands and less into our programs. We do not see the Church as a fortress in which to hide, but rather a training school from which to send those whom God has brought to faith out into the world to continue His great redemptive plan.

Our commitment to Reformed theology is based on the fact that it is biblical. It is drawn from the heart of God to us, and without it there can be no lasting blessing from God. When we speak of the Reformed faith, we are talking about those truths of God and man, sin and grace, love and judgment, which find their basis in Scripture and which we as a denomination embrace in our Westminster Confession of Faith and its Larger and Shorter catechisms.

The effects of sin are pervasive; men and women are not only harmed by sin, they are dead in it. Many will not embrace the biblical doctrines of election, calling, and regeneration, but evidence for the complete lostness of mankind, and therefore the absolute necessity of these doctrines, is everywhere. Our emphasis is one of full conviction that the doctrines of the Reformed faith are the truest expression of biblical faith and what the world needs to hear. We shall stress a faith that grips all of life, and we shall encourage all stations in life as a sacred calling.

We will admit that there have been times when the Reformed faith has been held in an unloving and critical fashion. If we are going to build a Reformed church in the world, there must be within that movement a tolerance for diversity. We must resist going beyond Scripture and imposing our own definitions on what it means to be Reformed. We know that we do not have the final word on every issue.

Finally, the way our theology is applied and expressed is a measure of the biblicalness of its content. We hold firmly to our positions while embracing other godly men and women who disagree with us. Simply put, if the Reformed faith is biblical faith, then any theology that is not expressed in love is neither Reformed nor biblical!

COVENANT THEOLOGY

To emphasize covenant theology is to emphasize the grace-conceived, grace-established, and grace-perfected reality of the Church and the Church’s mission activity.

When God chose Israel, and therefore the Church, He did so for no reason that was conditional in or inherent in His people (Deuteronomy 7:7). The covenant established with Abraham in Genesis 15 was in all of its outward manifestations an ancient, Mideastern contract, but in fact it was not a typical transaction of that day. Only God passed through the aisle between the animals. In other words, God was saying, “I alone am making and can make this covenant with my people.” If we can drink deeply from the truth of covenant theology, we shall be able to reorganize our priorities, so that the glory of God becomes the single most important passion in the life and work of the Church. The driving force of our ministry will not be a market-driven strategic plan, but rather the vision that God may be glorified among the people of all nations (Romans 1:5).

Seen from a covenant perspective, the doctrines of grace—especially election—are not viewed as a privileged position of safety from those who are lost, but rather a grace-centered relationship which empowers God’s people to engage in mission service to the world. The arena of God’s saving work is all of His creation. God has called His people by His covenant into a special relationship with Him in order to bring all of creation back from its broken state to its right relationship with God.

The Presbyterian Church in America, through its mission agency, Mission to the World, focuses on church planting because the Church is the corporate body that God has brought into being by His covenant. The saving work of God cannot be reduced to only a personalized salvation between God and individuals. It is within the covenant community of the Church that we experience one of the most dynamic living realities of the power of Christ. As Lord of the Church, He lives within the corporate body as Prophet, Priest, and King. He is the God-revealer, God-savior, and God-ruler over His people.

Mission activity does not end with conversion. Our goal is always the establishment of a vibrant, worshiping community, the church—a body of believers that is able to reproduce itself through mission activity of its own, and one that is able to make a life-changing impact within the lost and fallen culture in which God has placed it.

The covenant God has made with His people always has a two-fold purpose. God has called His people for worship, and that worship motivates the Church for ministry. We must avoid the temptation to focus only on nurture at the expense of ministry or vice versa. The life of the covenant community must always be balanced with the Church’s responsibility for the needs of the world.

Who belongs to the covenant community of God? There is great debate on this matter within evangelical Christianity. We believe, however, that the teaching of Scripture on this matter is very clear. All who believe by faith alone on Christ for salvation, and their children, are participants in the covenant promises. We do not believe in baptismal regeneration or in presumptive regeneration. That is, we do not believe that because a child has been baptized, or because his parents are believers in Christ, the child is automatically a member of the elect of God. On the other hand, the covenant promises have always been for those who have believed and their children. This is true in the Old Testament (Genesis 17:7), and what is true in the Old Testament, we believe must be true in the New Testament. At no time does God say that He has changed the extent of the covenant, although He does tell us that He has changed the sign. To remove the covenant promises from the children of believers would be to reduce the covenant in the New Testament, when in fact the New Testament is the fullness or fulfillment of that which was first promised to Abraham.

The covenant commission of the Old Testament was that the people of God were to teach faithfully the commandments of God to their children at all times and in all experiences of life (Deuteronomy 6:6-8). The covenant commission of the New Testament is just as one would expect—an expansion or a fulfillment of the Commission in the Old Testament. The people of God are to reach out to the peoples of all nations, baptizing them into the Church and teaching them to apply the commandments of God to all of life (Matthew 28:19-20).

Dr. Paul Kooistra served as president of Covenant Theological Seminary from 1983 – 1994, and since that time has served the PCA as Coordinator of Mission to the World.

This article is available in .pdf format for easy reading and printing by clicking here.

David Livingstone showed what real compassion to Africa looks like | by, Marvin Olasky

This article is from WORLD Magazine. Clicking on the “read more” link at the bottom of the article will require you have a subscription to WORLD.

LIVINGSTONE, ZAMBIA—”Fear God and work hard.” That was the motto of David Livingstone, son of a poor Scottish millworker, who worked so hard that he overcame the class-stratified odds and became a medical doctor. Joining the London Missionary Society, he arrived in southern Africa in 1841 and regularly showed the courage that faith in Christ gave him.

For 16 years he had many adventures. A lion mauled him in 1844. Malarial fevers beset him regularly. Angry chiefs shot poisoned arrows at him. A hippo knocked him out of his canoe and he swam to shore before crocodiles could get him. He did what people said was impossible, traversing the Kalahari Desert and making it to the Zambezi River deep into Africa, where he wrote in his journal, “How glorious! How magnificent! How beautiful!” A Britain grown tame heard of his adventures and sat up in wonder. Read the rest of this article

by Rev. Scott Seaton

THE UNTRADITIONAL BECOMES TRADITION

Shortly after the publication of his “Enquiry Into the Obligation of Christians” in 1792, William Carey addressed ministers of the Baptist Association at a meeting in Nottingham, England. After encouraging them from Isaiah 54:2-3 to commit themselves to world evangelization, he exhorted them to demonstrate faith: “Expect great things from God; attempt great things for God.” The next day, at great financial sacrifice to themselves, the Baptist ministers formed a missions board, the Baptist Missionary Society. With this commitment, the modern missions movement was born. While the current of missions runs all the way back to Eden, so influential were Carey’s writings, model, and methods that a truly new channel had been opened.

Much has changed since Carey’s day. The increased emphasis on indigenous leadership, the evolving role of the missionary, and the concept of unreached people groups are some of the many ways missions has matured in the last two hundred years. Yet the basic method for sending and supporting missionaries remains largely untouched. Simply stated, churches that share a passion for missions entrust their members and resources to a mission agency, which oversees all aspects of field ministry. The Baptist Missionary Society served not only as the means to support these early missionaries to India, it became a model for all subsequent efforts. It remains the dominant model today.

This approach tends to be very linear and one-directional, with the church laying the foundation for missions in education, prayer, and support, but then essentially turning over all further responsibility to the sending agency. In turn, the agency would hopefully provide a well-developed system of oversight and support, a breadth of ministry opportunities and experience, a coherent philosophy of ministry, and a mechanism to pool resources. As a model, it was straightforward, uncomplicated, and directly responsible for the expansion of world missions to this day.

The following diagram portrays that relationship:

For all that was gained in this approach, two significant weaknesses emerged. First, the local church largely delegated its ownership of missions to the agency—and along with it a significant amount of passion and vision for the work in the field. The local church was rarely involved in field ministry, except through praying for the work and hearing from the missionaries. The actual ministry became the province of the agency. The downside of this approach is that the local church was effectively relegated to the role of patron, rarely questioning its ownership of actual missions work. Both the church and the agency accepted this relationship as unassailable.

Second, this passivity inevitably led to churches having little direction for their missions ministry—a purposelessness rarely shared by other ministries of the church. The church rightfully expects its children’s ministry to have a philosophy and structure. Same for adult education or worship. But in many churches, the missions ministry has no such focus. The primary role of the missions committee is sadly reduced to that of a foundation distributing grant money to applicants. It’s simply assumed that this is all that missions committees do. No wonder there’s not much passion for world missions in many of our churches.

As a missions pastor for 14 years, I would often receive calls from both missionaries and agencies, seeking support for their ministry. The conversation always went something like this: “Here’s what we’re doing in missions. God is opening a strategic door for ministry, and we’d like you to be part of it—by giving us your money and your people.” I often felt like I was being sold something, with no concern whether we had a prior interest in the “product.” Until we began to be intentional about our involvement, we would passively receive many such requests, making decisions on little more than the quality of the presentation and the availability of funds. We were not much more than patrons.

A DEMAND FOR MORE OWNERSHIP

Today, however, people expect more involvement. Younger generations are less willing to entrust others with their resources and loyalty, instead demanding hands-on experience and ownership. Further, in a day of rapid travel and instant communication, church missions leaders and members are now able to participate directly in cross-cultural missions with little inconvenience or sacrifice. Short-term projects and instant connection to the field via email are common examples of this trend. When coupled with greater resources to sustain that interest, it’s no surprise that the traditional model is being rejected in many churches. Rather than passively responding to a variety of requests and strategies, these churches are thoughtfully developing a missions emphasis that uniquely suits their congregations. Based on its philosophical commitments and personal relationships, for example, a church may want to focus on church planting among a certain people group. Such a focus invariably means concentrating on a few places, in order to have greater impact and involvement. Depth rather than breadth becomes the overriding consideration. This commitment often involves taking the initiative in helping to develop the ministry, and thus more ownership in its success or failure. In this way, churches begin to assume more of the responsibilities traditionally reserved for the sending agency. From the recruitment of missionaries to the development of strategy, some churches are becoming, in theory and sometimes in practice, their own mission agencies.

This approach is one of the most significant trends in missions today, and many churches in the PCA have taken steps in this direction. Some of this momentum stems from the churches’ perception of sending agencies as bureaucratic and staid, unable or unwilling to involve the local church and its missions priorities—even unaware it might have any. In that climate, the church feels it has no choice but to go it alone. The dominant message in this model is the church saying, in effect, “We don’t want to delegate all the exciting stuff to an agency. We can do it ourselves.”

The following diagram portrays that relationship, where the missions agency is bypassed altogether:

But as with the traditional model, there are downsides, for with all that the local church gains, much is lost as well. By not availing itself of the agency’s expertise and experience, a church may plunge into a work blind to the issues and pitfalls at every turn. Field ministry may suffer when churches fail to develop a coherent philosophy—or even know what to consider in devising a strategy. Most detrimental is the difficulty of producing a sustainable ministry without the broader resources of numerous churches, thereby leaving national partners in the cold when the ministry falters. Certainly the missions agency is not perfect in these regards, but there is every danger the local church will repeat the mistakes it has sought to avoid. One final caution: the churches most likely to attempt this direction are the larger, better-resourced congregations. The unfortunate implication, then, is that direct field involvement is not for the smaller church, which must continue in the traditional role of missions patron.

My own experience as a missions pastor reflects these problems. Convinced that greater focus leads to greater participation, our church adopted a people group in the Balkans, in part because an agency was planning to send missionaries to this newly opened country. When that placement fell through, our church teamed up with another PCA church to serve as our own sending agency. We recruited and selected candidates, provided pre-field training, helped the missionaries settle into the country, and worked with them closely as they developed a strategy. Our congregations enthusiastically supported them through their prayers, giving, and several short-term projects. Our missions leaders visited them two to three times a year and regularly communicated with them via email and phone. The actual ministry was busy and robust, providing a significant contribution to training emerging church planters. Based on the commitment from our churches and the vision on the field, everything seemed to be going great.

Over time, however, we saw that it was difficult to sustain the work. Policies and philosophy were created on the fly and in reaction to ever-changing circumstances. We made strategic mistakes that could easily have been avoided had we more experience. The administration of funds and resources seemed a common distraction from “the real work.” We didn’t know what level of care and oversight was appropriate, including support for re-entry into the U.S. And with a limited pool of candidates, we ultimately could not provide successors to our missionaries. The work was essentially turned over to another mission agency and our current involvement remains relatively insignificant.

A NEW APPROACH

There is, however, a third way. The unavoidable trend in missions today is for churches to connect directly to the field; this direction should be accepted and affirmed. The agency brings experience and facilitation for long-term ministry; this role should likewise be accepted and affirmed. A model for the future, then, is one that builds on the strengths of the two models mentioned above, while attempting to minimize the weaknesses. This new approach involves the creation of a partnership of all interested churches, the sending agency, and field workers to develop and coordinate ministry related to a specific field.

The dominant message here simply is: “We all need each other, so let’s work together,” as suggested by the following diagram:

In this model, MTW becomes a facilitator of missions involvement, rather than the traditional “here’s what we’re doing” agency. In this facilitating role, MTW’s first question to churches changes from “Will you join us?” to “Where has God called you to serve? And if you don’t know, can we help you discover it?” A group of churches with a common focus would then partner together with MTW and missionaries to initiate and/or develop a work.

We are currently in the early stages of several such partnerships. After a formation period of defining how the various partners will work together, they are beginning to cooperate in ministry. One partnership is establishing an English lending library in Central Asia, collecting, cataloguing, and shipping the books, then sending interns to teach English and establish relationships. Another partnership is focusing on church planter training, helping to develop the curriculum and materials. The essential difference in this model is the level of communication and interaction among the various partners.

Although each partner may contribute to any aspect of the partnership, it has been helpful to clarify which partners will take the lead in various responsibilities, as follows.

The field workers (missionaries and national leaders) determine ministry vision and strategy, carry out the ministry, and equip partners to effectively serve alongside. Churches provide input to field strategy, initiate projects with field approval, and participate in ministry. Further, they educate, equip, and send members in missions, help provide financial support, and can assist in candidate assessment and training.

MTW continues its responsibilities to administrate financial accounts, assess and train candidates, and supervise the missionaries. It will also facilitate the partnership by fostering communication and coordination, and keeping the partnership on track by preventing both irrelevance (not being engaged) and micro-management (dictating to the field). All the partners—field, church, and agency—are responsible to promote the ministry, expand and organize the partnership, and recruit and care for team members.

A GREAT ATTEMPT

Partnership in some expression is nothing new. What is different in this emerging model, however, is the combination of two elements: the high degree of interaction and coordination among the various partners, and the concentration of ministry on a particular work. It is premature and even hubristic to term this direction the “future of missions,” but those involved to date have great hope that something truly significant is taking shape. They like being more connected to the field and to each other, and they see the potential to invigorate the missions ministry of both the local church and the overseas field. The ability of these first partners to see over the horizon recalls the faith that William Carey called his brothers to demonstrate.

The passage from Isaiah that Carey spoke from at the Nottingham conference challenges us to “enlarge the place of your tent, stretch your tent curtains wide.” The surprise in this passage is not that we need to make room for the expansion of God’s kingdom, but that we are to do so before the growth actually occurs. That requires faith, a deep conviction that God is going to work, and we need to get ready for it. These partnerships are a waste of time and energy if God has no place for us in the Great Commission. But if He does, partnering with others demonstrates faith by expanding our capacity to serve—even prior to seeing the fruit He will bring. May we too “expect great things from God; attempt great things for God.”

Rev. Scott Seaton has served as a missionary to Japan with MTW, as missions pastor at Intown Community Church, PCA, as the Intrnational Director of Enterprise for Christian-Muslim Relations at MTW, and now as a PCA church planter in Arlington, VA of Emmanuel Presbyterian Church.

This article is available for easy reading and printing in .pdf format by clicking here.