Missions Blog for Churches

The following is a book review of When Helping Hurts: How to alleviate poverty without hurting the poor…and yourself. You can find out more about this book at www.whenhelpinghurts.org and can order it online here.

When Helping Hurts is a compelling book that will be a significant help to the Church for years to come. The first chapter alone is worth the cost of the book and ought to be read by every church leader in every ministry category. This is not just a book for the missions committee (although it ought to be required for everyone involved in missions) or the Outreach Director, or the pastor. I think every Christian in America would benefit. Most evangelicals would be rattled.

There are several benefits from this book. Since most people read book reviews to try and determine whether they want to buy and read the book, let me mention those benefits.

It doesn’t just pick on the Church or her leaders. This book is personal; it will pick on you. It was deeply convicting to me as I read it. I realized that as many times as I have been moved by stories about the fatherless and the widow, the poor and the sick, I am not purposefully living for my life, and leading that of my family, to intersect with these members of society. I have forsaken the needy by my enslavement to convenience and stuff. My house is conveniently situated away from poverty. I hardly see the needy. And then there is my busyness. All my important tasks that keep me far away spending myself on “behalf of the hungry” (Is. 58:10) are often where I find my own significance and worth. I am convicted that although I hold to the position that all humans are created in the image of God, I don’t live as such. And I realize that I do have a god-complex (although every time I read that phrase in the book, my first reaction was, “No I don…..okay, I do. I do.”).

The authors are not writing from lofty chairs in academia. They pen their own confessions. One of my favorites is, “I confess to you that part of what motivates me to help the poor is my felt need to accomplish something worthwhile with my life, to be a person of significance, to feel like II have pursued a noble cause…to be a bit like God…I sometimes unintentionally reduce poor people to objects that I use to fulfill my own need to accomplish something. it is a very ugly truth, and it pains me to admit it, but ‘when I want to do good, evil is right there with me’ (Rom. 7:21).” [p. 65] They also give a number of examples that show where they blew it. This communicates not only humility, but also a sense that there’s a bit of a journey involved. Helping the needy will never become neat, clean and orderly.

This book is highly biblical, both in its use of Scripture for application as well as in developing a theory of poverty that serves as the framework. You won’t be able to get past a few pages at any point in the book without being confronted by biblical truth (and a helpful reference). And it does not do what many books on this subject do, namely, present steps and practices for alleviating poverty dissected from the Bible as the source of these truths or from the Holy Spirit as the source of divine power. Rather, the authors continually remind you of the authority of Scripture and our dependency on the Holy Spirit for power and guidance in the journey. One good example is early in the book, as the authors lay the groundwork for the importance of relationships in assisting the poor and sick. They take the reader back to the relationship in the Godhead, the Trinity. And from there they expand and explain how ministry flows through relationships. The poor are not going to be helped, without hurting them, if we just conduct drive-by ministry.

This book is also highly practical. The authors not only explain best practices and steps to take, but they give examples of what they might look like. And they also offer gracious critiques of benevolent practices that many of us have followed. The strange thing is that while reading many of the critiques, the thought ran through my head, “That always seemed a little unwise to me.” You’ll finish with not just new techniques, but will actually have an understanding of why some things work and some don’t.

Many in the church will want to read this because of their local outreach. But this book is just as important for global outreach. In my job, I am continually laboring to help churches understand the importance of their short-term trips not becoming drive-by (or fly-by) ministries. Feeding the poor is wonderful. Caring for the orphan is beautiful. Both are biblical. But to be the best these ministries can be, both need to be in the context (connected to) a sustainable ministry. Biblically, you can’t escape the fact that this is the church. Ministries that are conducted apart from the church die when their leadership dies (or moves, or changes strategies, or gets new vision, etc…). They are simply not sustainable. But when ministry is conducted in and through the church, there is lasting fruit. New believers are folded into that work. And when the US worker (or partnering church) leaves, the church will continue the ministry.

I don’t get to read a ton of books, but this is one that has so impacted my thinking and stirred my heart, that I am encouraging everyone to read it. It’s one of those books. I’ve got a stack of copies with me for my next journey to share with folks. I think it will disturb you too, in the best way possible. Order When Helping Hurts online.

“So, whether you eat or drink, or(A) whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” 1 Corinthians 10:31

One way to drink to the glory of God could be drinking better coffee. No, really! A friend of mine who is a church planter in the Atlanta-area, mentioned that they switched coffee they use for their fellowship time. He told me that not only is it good coffee, it’s for a good cause. The coffee is grown and harvested in Rwanda, by Rwandans. And there’s a missional connection. I’ll let you read their website to find out more about that: http://www.landof1000hills.com/

I’d love to see a PCA church begin something like this with an MTW work. A couple of years ago, MTW gave away coffee cups with small bags of coffee from our work in Ethiopia. The coffee was roasted and bagged by ladies who this ministry was reaching out to, who had been widowed by AIDS. The work allowed them to provide for themselves and their children. It’d be great to see some connection like that expanded. It would certainly create a meaninful partnership between US churches and the ministry in the country where the coffee is purchased from. Imagine each Sunday, a tasty reminder of missions for your people to sip on!

The following is part of a report from MTW’s Coordinator, Dr. Paul Kooistra. In it he describes the need for both US missionaries and partnerships with national leaders. MTW has seen a real growth in the number of national partners. This is truly exciting to think about, and I look forward to seeing more PCA members go to equip even more national partners. Indeed, theological training and ministry equipping are some of the strongest offerings the PCA has to the Church beyond our borders.

I am often asked why MTW does not work with nationals. The answer to the question is that we do work with nationals. In fact, we work with a lot of nationals. The number of our national partners now exceeds the number of long-term missionaries.

Some who ask this question are actually asking why we don’t work exclusively with nationals. To many it seems much more efficient and more economical.

As I have indicated above, MTW does not in any way diminish the importance of working with nationals. From the beginning of the Church, nationals have played a vital leadership role. Paul, during his first missionary journey, appointed local leaders in Iconium, Lystra and Derbe. Throughout church history the translation of the Bible into the vernacular was of primary importance.

On the other hand, we see that one church reached out to another church and to the masses held captive in the darkness of their own sin. It is not possible to reach out only with money. If we don’t give ourselves, we have missed the very essence of the gospel. The incarnation of God argues for an incarnational response.

We actually have some places in the world where nationals ask us to come, wanting no monetary help, but only the encouragement and connectivity with the Church in the United States. They recognize that their church is richer spiritually for its interaction with our Church.

What is now needed is for our Church to realize that we are richer for our interaction with other churches around the world. Paul reminds us that the body of Christ is made up of many parts. Usually, we only interpret this truth in relationship to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We need to see that this also relates to the different parts of the Church around the world. We need each other, and that is one reason we respond to the Great Commission.

Pray for MTW and our missionaries as we deal with the weak dollar and the financial crisis within the U.S. We will be monitoring the budget very closely. I pray we will be able to deal with this matter by being very careful.   -   Paul Kooistra

The following is from a report by Paul Taylor, International Director of the Asia/Pacific region. This encouraging news demonstrates the power of the Gospel in a place where the soil is still very hard.

Tokyo, Japan—the MTW team here is the largest MTW team in the world, so one question was can we divide this into two or three teams.  The end result is that we will move to develop at least one other team in the next two years, and possibly a second.  One team with focus on the rapidly developing Chiba Prefecture (that is the current team).  A second will focus on the area between Chiba and downtown Tokyo.  And the third if we actually form it into a team will focus on developing a major center city church working in partnership with Redeemer church in NYC and the Presbyterian Church in Japan.

PRAY for wisdom and smooth transition as these changes are implemented.

Nagoya, Japan—This team has effectively developed a much needed new seminary to serve the church in Japan, and in particular to raise up new pastors and church planters for the Presbytery Church in Japan.  Since this is very much off and running now under the capable leadership of Dr. Michael Oh, the seminary or educational sector of this team will form a separate team which will focus on school development and any outreach coming out of that.  This was implemented immediately.

PRAY for Wayne Newsome and Michael Oh as they head these ministries which bring honor and glory to our Lord.

Clay Quarterman recently announced that MTW’s work in Ukraine is now completely led by nationals. This is extremely encouraging news to receive, and to a large degree, one of the biggest goals most MTW teams have. We don’t want our efforts to be dependent on more US missionaries being sent to sustain the work. Rather, when nationals are equipped to lead, they create a sustainable supply of future leaders for the work of the ministry. But this is not an easy thing to do. Clay writes on his website:

It was really strange at Presbytery. Right after we declared and celebrated the new Presbytery, there were some serious issues to be dealt with in confidence, and the Presbytery went into “closed session”. This meant that all non-members had to leave the room – including missionaries! So it was strange and wonderful to be excluded! But it shows the reality of what we have celebrated.

Clay continues:

We officially passed over all our authority to the national Presbyterian Church of Ukraine! This is a milepost, because it means God has raised up godly believers here who have banded together into 11 local churches, and it means God has raised up 11 spiritual leaders who have been trained, academically and practically. They have proven themselves in service to others, and we have turned over the whole thing to the Holy Spirit—to work in them, among them, and through them. It’s a BIG THING!

But, as the MTW-Ukraine team leader, Eric Huber, said, “This is not a birth, but a Bar-Mitzvah!” We have seen this coming, year-by-year. We planned for it and worked into it gradually, but it is still a moment to celebrate. We have officially “passed the baton”. Hallelujah! Praise God for His internal, spiritual, and maturing work!

So, what now? We are certainly not done, for the church continues to desire our help. In fact, I am one of the few “left behind” as a continuing part of Presbytery. Since I am president of their seminary, they want me as an official member. However, this also means I am put on various committees! (Continue reading this article by clicking here)

You can find out more about what the Lord is doing through MTW in Ukraine by visiting the MTW Ukraine Team Website.

India will soon surpass China as the most populous nation on earth. And intense religious persecution is taking place in both countries. Recent reports have told of severe attacks on Christians in Orissa State, India. A number of churches were closed and Christians were not able to worship on Christmas Day.

However, there are some encouraging signs. Recently, an Indian man in his early 20s came to Christ, was discipled via chat-line by a PCA ruling elder from Texas, and ultimately was used by the Lord to establish a group of churches that expects to grow to 300 congregations in the next 10 years.

In spite of extensive persecution, the Church in India is moving aggressively ahead and growing by leaps and bounds. Will the Church in India see the same kind of growth as the Church in China? Click here to read more

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 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.

by Rev. Paul Meiners

The building where the church met, like their own simple houses, was not that impressive — until you realized they had built so much of it with their own resources. As the pastor and leaders showed us around, you could see pride on their faces. Each one who spoke described construction or ministry that was fulfilling their vision. The pastor said little, but deferred to those he had “equipped for the work of ministry.” They introduced members each of them were training in ministries in this poor community—like caring for the sick, training people in skills to earn a living, and using these as opportunities to tell others the gospel and encourage new believers. When we asked them how we could help, this seemed an unanticipated question. Over tea in the office, they came up with some small, hands-on projects in which we could work along side them, adding some value to ongoing ministries of their church. This church is sustainable, we agreed—our help might enhance their ministry, but they know what they are doing and can prosper on their own. In fact, there is much we can learn from them!

We have a great goal to pursue—to use our involvement with churches and ministries in the rest of the world to stimulate their effectiveness, using their own God-given resources in ministering to their community—in a word—sustainable. The opposite is dependence on outside resources to carry on their work. In pursuing this goal, we will be encouraged by their “obedience to the gospel” to be even more effective in our own ministries in our communities in the Western world.

God Equips Each Church for Its Ministry
The Judean church in the New Testament had a long spiritual background, while the newer Gentile churches had more material security. Paul pointed out the importance of the church in Corinth contributing to the needs of the poorer church in Judea. Their gift would result in thanks that they had genuinely obeyed the gospel (2 Cor. 9:12-14) and were now in fellowship with the earlier, Judean, believers. Like spiritual gifts, God distributes resources differently so that we function as an interdependent body. We are to give according to what we have, not bemoan what we don’t have. (2 Cor. 8:13-14; Rom. 15:26-27) If one part of the body neglects the resources God gave them, believing they can only serve God if they had different resources, they show lack of faith in themselves, but even more lack of faith in God, since “my God will meet all your needs.” (Php. 4:11-13,19; 2 Cor. 9:8-11)

How Has God Blessed Us Differently?
Often we don’t understand the healthy way in which the Church around the world should interact with its other parts. It is too easy for us, as Westerners, to compare our resources to those of churches in the majority of the world, and conclude that we have most of the resources and they have few. Americans like to be helpers. Standing on our own, giving instead of asking for help, and finding our own creative solutions are all highly rated American values. Besides, poverty makes us feel guilty and uncomfortable. Two-thirds World churches belong to cultures that value fitting into your community more than independence, helping each other out in times of need. Giving gifts is important if you have the means, and expressing your need is quite acceptable. Therefore it is natural for an American church to conclude, “We have the resources to help,” and their sister church in another country to agree, “We have needs you can meet.”

On closer look, what are some different resources with which God has equipped a Western church and her sister church in a poorer country? The chart below is a simplification, but should help us compare how they might partner in the poorer, host church’s community.

Can Western Generosity Create Problems?
Western resources become a problem when we come as outsiders and become a temporary (up to 20 years) part of a church’s community. As visitors we want to contribute, and to us the needs are obvious. So we organize, teach, pay the expenses, and leave resources behind. Here are some of the problems an overwhelming foreign impact can cause:

• Our money influences decision-making. “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
• Other cultures have a strong sense of hospitality and like to please their guests. They defer to our decisions and won’t offend us with what we’d call “honesty.”
• By having significant impact as outsiders, we become their “temporary community,” and disturb their local community relationships. This shift in community alignment is harder for us to understand because the majority of our non-rural, non-urban churches don’t have such strong connections to their own communities.
• The church we help may decrease their efforts to creatively maximize their own resources by shifting their interest to using ours. Instead of planning ministry based on community opportunities and resources, their ministry plans reflect the goals and methods of their donors.

Let’s illustrate with some ways ministry methods can change if a Western church takes a directing role through their generosity.

Does this mean that Western Christians should leave churches in other cultures alone? No, that would be disobedient to the missionary call and ignore the interdependence and global use of our gifts from God. The question is not “if”, but “how” our efforts will promote sustainability instead of dependence. The key word in the comparison above is “reliance.”

Here is our purpose: It is our desire that believers carry on the ministry to which God has called them in their own environment by relying on the resources that are in their own hands. There are stages in their development toward maturity in their ministry when carefully used help of various forms from the outside will be a stimulus to their growth and equipping, but we believe that help should be temporary and nurture strength and independence, not create dependence.

How Can We Purse Sustainability?

We can lay down some principles to follow in three important areas.

Turning Ministry Over to the Local Community

• Assume that in the near future you may be removed from your work. What can you do to be as dispensable as possible on that day?
• Training is a key means of developing sustainability. From the very start ask this question: “Why am I doing this myself? If this activity pertains to the future of the body here, I should always be working with someone in order to train them to take it over!”
• Donors all want to be needed, think we have much to offer, and are tempted to make ourselves needed longer than necessary. We have to pursue these relationships as partnerships, promote the value added by the local community, and not perpetuate our role any more than is essential.
• Decisions should be made as close to the community as possible. The greater our distance from the local community and culture, the less qualified we are to make good long-term decisions. Connect with groups of local leaders, be quiet and learn to listen. Develop church and ministry structures of multiple local leaders.
• Realize that the most effective lessons of governance are the ones you model, not those found in an organizational document that seems foreign to your national coworkers. Model open, accountable, mutual decisions in which there is “subjection to the brethren.”

Ensuring Any Ministry is Community Based

• Before committing to a new aspect of your work, ask, “Can this be carried on from within the community?” If the answer is “No,” or “Doubtful,” then modify it, drop it, or make sure it is only temporary. If you believe it is important, test the community’s interest, ability and commitment. If they don’t provide key support, postpone it until it is appropriate to test it again.
• It’s better to start small and respond to community interest and vision. To build vision is more valuable than to build structures. When their vision is adequate, they can build the appropriate structure.
• Beware the temptation to “improve” things by adding features that cannot be sustained with local resources. Such features can change a project from short-term “partnership” to long-term “paternalship.” By adding surgery to a clinic you can lose the clinic. Shallow wells can be sustained; deeper ones will produce no water because the pump can’t be maintained.
• Outside resources, when used, should be for new projects, ideas that are generated and designed by local leadership, projects of limited time and scope, and should act to stimulate local resources rather than replace or squelch them.
• Even if more of the resources come from outside, community resources must be key for the project to go ahead. Their resources may be primarily planning, “sweat equity” (labor), getting permissions, or generating community involvement. Whatever they provide, they must be able to say honestly, “It couldn’t have
  happened without us” and have ownership pride in the project. They must feel this is “our project,” not “their project.”
• Even using outside resources, it is still all about the local project, not about the outsider. The project should be designed to meet local needs and standards, not satisfy donor wishes. Key to this is that the primary decision-making needs to be close to the community. If there are not yet community people capable of making the decisions, the first step is to develop them, not bring in resources.

Avoiding Problems in Paying People Involved in Ministry

• Ministry, for most believers, is a calling to exercise our gifts, not a paying job. Paul limits people supported for ministry in the church to those, like elders, with major responsibilities (1 Tim 5:17-18), or, like widows, with no other support and serving the body (1 Tim 5:3-16). Both types of people must meet clear qualifications, and their pay is rightful but not guaranteed (cf. 1 Cor 9:4-18). Even those with a right to support may have to be “tent makers.”
• Employees answer to their employer. Therefore, do not “employ” those who should answer to someone else. You may temporarily provide scholarships, employ workers, or provide tent-making work for a pastor, but don’t employ him as a pastor. A pastor should report to his church, not to foreigners. As soon as possible, ensure that anyone who gets outside money reports to a local body that employs them and handles the funds. Their priority needs to be making good decisions for the ministry, not pleasing donors.

Getting On With It

Are these guaranteed methods? Is pursuing sustainability easier? Many years of trial and error testify that sustainability is not the easier goal in the short haul. It involves more involved planning with nationals and difficult decisions. Some “friends” may not stick. However, we are only servants, and in the end it is their church. It will prosper or fail based on how well they live out their calling from God with the resources God has put in their hands.

When we think missions, money is one of the first things that comes to our minds. We need to ask God for at least an equal measure of wisdom to use it in ways that will stimulate churches in other countries to stand on their own. If we contribute to their dependence on Western resources, we will lose out on another gift—the potential they have to become selfsustaining churches that are our teachers where we are weak. We could learn some lessons from them about ministering in our community, making the Scriptures clear to our culture, learning to be bold and suffer for the name of Christ, and integrating our faith into our own lives and those of the needy people around us. Those who become involved in missions, even for a short-term, often come back with a new perspective, not only on ministry in another culture, but also on ministry in their own.

Rev. Paul Meiners and his wife Liz are career missionaries in Africa. Paul’s present role is as MTW’s Regional Director for Sub Sahara Africa.

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

by Dr. Russell Mask

The Chalmers Center frequently receives phone calls from churches in the U.S. asking what to do when a sister church in a low-income country requests funds to start a business. Oftentimes the deep poverty in developing countries encourages churches and missionaries to seek ways to raise the incomes of churches and their members. One possible approach is to start a business that can generate a reliable source of revenue for the church, the pastor, or the members.

For example, I know of one church in Manila, Philippines that operates a small store, a restaurant, and a ladies dormitory in addition to its street kids’ shelter. The businesses generate income that funds the church’s rent and part of the shelter expenses, and they also provide real-life places to minister and disciple. In rural areas some churches desire to start agricultural or animal husbandry projects such as chicken farms to achieve similar goals.

When proposals for these sorts of projects come to church mission committees in request of funds, it would be useful to consider the following points about microeconomic development strategies:

1. Businesses created to support a church’s ministry must operate by sound business
   principles if they are to succeed. This means they must: a) Operate fully as a business with a real profit concern; b) Not rely on altruistic markets for their products or services. A reliable market is one in which customers buy the product or service because it meets their needs, not out of altruism; c) Not be so closely related to the church that the business cannot practice increasingly professional management and pricing. For more details on this, see the book by Dr. David Befus entitled Kingdom Business: the Ministry of Promoting Economic Activity.
2. It is important to learn whether group businesses or individual businesses are more
   appropriate for the context of the church. The economic incentives of group-based
   businesses are usually not as strong as individual businesses, and management is much more difficult, but this may be context-specific. Results may be more positive if individual families are targeted instead of group businesses.
3. Recognize the risks of doing harm through a failed business. If business assets are
   misused, the reputation of the pastor or church can be damaged. If the business is poorly conceived or implemented, yet subsidies from U.S. churches continue, we begin to encourage mediocrity and possibly a sense of failure.
4. Realize that business feasibility assessment requires on-the-ground analysis by culturallyinformed businesspeople. It is not something that can be easily done 8,000 miles away by a church missions committee, even if it has businesspeople on it. The context may be so complex that sometimes it is not even easily done by a Western businessperson on a shortterm missions trip.
5. Acknowledge that there are probably local resources and lots of indigenous knowledge that can be tapped right there where the church is. They may not need our help as much as we think they do.
6. Evidence from most developing countries is that poor people can and do save. These
   savings are resources that can be mobilized and used for income generation if people are motivated and have safe ways to do so. They may not actually need our resources to get a business or loan fund started, but determining this is, again, not easily done from great distance or via short-term trips. For more information about this topic, see the discussion of the promotion model in the following article, entitled “Alternative Microfinance Strategies for Churches and Missions.”
7. Recognize that local people need business income and reliable places to save and borrow once they have a business. They benefit from savings and loan facilities because they need lump sums of money that they can use for family emergencies, family life-cycle needs, and further opportunities to invest in businesses or household assets.
8. If you want to help with business development or with savings and loan services, you may benefit from more training to learn current sound practices. Training in practical and field-tested strategies and church-centered programs is offered by the Chalmers Center for
   Economic Development at Covenant College. Training is available through distance learning classes and at the Christian Economic Development Institute (CEDI) courses at Covenant College (visit www.chalmers.org for more information).
9. Finally, there are theological issues that should be considered concerning the proper
   means of funding the ministry of the church. While Paul used tentmaking to fund his ministry from time to time, many note that the ministry of the Church should normally be funded by the tithes and offerings of the congregation (I Corinthians 9). Some thought should be given as to whether funding a church-run business enterprise establishes an unhealthy pattern.

Dr. Russell Mask is International Microenterprise Development Coordinator for the Chalmers Center and Assistant Professor of Community Development at Covenant College. Visit www.chalmers.org for more information about resources and training.

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