 |
 |
||
|
March - April 1998 The Editorial MF Behind the Scenes
|
Sphere Six: Congregational-Direct Missions Defined This kind of activity is also derivative, since much of it consists of improving upon Christian movements already existing on the field. Many “charismatic” congregations, but also most “mega church” congregations,are tending to develop their own mix of this kind of “direct” mission activity. It may consist of sending a lone family or a small team out there somewhere, or sending money, or sending short-termers or visitors, or building a hospital, etc. Many such congregations do not want to depend on any other structure. Perhaps their Gospel, their kind of church structure or ethos, they feel, is quite unique—almost a new kind of Christianity—and can only be extended directly if it is to arrive safely.—RDW Congregational-Direct Missions Represented Mike Phillips Board Member, Antioch Network There is a growing movement among churches to have “direct involvement” in missions and to develop their own missions program. For many churches this may mean putting together their own short-term trip or missions project. Increasingly, however, with the emphasis on adopting and praying for unreached peoples, some of these churches are beginning to send their own teams for the purpose of church planting. The Antioch Network estimates that there are thousands of such churches, hundreds of which are at least considering sending out their own teams. Churches fitting into the category of Congregational-Direct Missions (CDMs) come from a wide spectrum of Evangelical Christianity, and include some who are part of denominations with well-established mission organizations. Often the missions project or team is sent out from a single church; sometimes it is from a cluster or even network of churches. Some churches solicit advice from established mission agencies while others enter into very defined partnerships with such agencies. Still others operate exclusively on their own. There are some notable similarities, however. They tend to be made up of the younger generations (boomers and Xers) and usually have younger leaders. Many of these churches strongly emphasize that church is a family/community. Large numbers of mega-churches also fit into this category. These churches tend to be quite entrepreneurial. This characterizes their involvement in missions as well. They are not content with just giving money and reading mission updates prepared by people they hardly know. This younger generation is seeking avenues of participation that are consistent with their value system, which includes a high degree of ownership and personal involvement. This “new” thinking does not lack historical precedence. The great missionary thrust of the Moravians was both birthed and sustained by a local congregation. And certainly a case can be made from the early, apostolic church for strong local church involvement. Another factor that makes CDMs so appealing today is that many can be involved. With today’s focus on targeting the unreached peoples of the 10/40 window, many professionally-trained missionaries have no platform from which to enter restricted areas. On the other hand, local churches often have professionals who can enter the most restricted areas. We believe that church-planting teams, consisting of both trained missionaries and tentmakers, will be the team of the future. God has indeed endowed the local church with many gifted people. There are numerous opportunities in the areas of administration, envisioning, research, and special projects for those in the sending churches. Prayer takes on a different dimension when one personally knows those who have been sent. The financial commitment is almost always enhanced when the mission is owned locally. The great task of reaching the nations now has the potential of involving all the Church. Why should missions be excluded from the ministry of the local church? According to the simple laws of reproduction, who can plant new churches better than other churches? A study of today’s vibrant church-planting movements, both here in the U.S. and abroad, would show this to be the case. Teams sent from a local church usually consist of people who have bonded over time, with a common vision, as well as having a history of serving together. Not only have they worked through conflicts, but also have worked through the various dynamics of their gift mix. They deeply value the local church, and that value and vision for multiplication is transferred to the local church that is raised up on the field. The multiplication of churches becomes a more natural process. We are fully aware that there are weaknesses with the CDM approach. Being a new movement, we have much to learn from those who have experience in areas such as missions administration, finances, cross-cultural issues, language acquisition, and missions strategy. The Antioch Network is working to fill some of these gaps by directing churches to other churches and mission organizations that can provide the needed expertise. The CDM movement needs the other mission spheres. We need not only their advice and input, but we believe that there are many points in which we can work together. As this movement matures and gains further momentum, we foresee greater participation in many types of missions (Relief, Service, Indigenous, Short-Term, etc.). Local churches are gaining vision and passion for world evangelization and planting churches among unreached peoples. More than ever, churches believe they are being called to more direct involvement in missions. Most would welcome help and encouragement from the rest of the missions community. Without that help, the movement will eventually mature, even if by trial and error. With that help, maturity will come more quickly, and we all will be enriched. Editorial Comment on Congregational-Direct Missions This category, like the last one, grows in part out of a post-war social phenomenon—what some have called the “Post-Denominational” congregation, whether Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral or Bill Hybel’s Willow Creek. But many smaller churches now have in mind projects of their own devising which don’t appear to require the involvement of a Standard Mission agency. If the short-term movement has been a trend toward “amateurism” in missions then congregational-direct mission efforts are often even worse. This trend is one of the most inspiring and pleasing, in some ways, while in other ways it is one of the most scary. We hear: ”According to the simple laws of reproduction, who can plant new churches better than other churches?” Most church people, even members of brand new congregations, have no idea how a congregation does or should start, or even how it is to function—in their own society, let alone in a cross-cultural situation. It is, in fact, highly unlikely that local congregations will have the resources of previous experience or historical or missiological perspective to work strategically or even effectively in a cross-cultural situation. Most congregations are unable to deal effectively with ethnic minorities on their doorstep. Why would they expect to be able to deal intelligently with those same kinds of strange people at a distance? Yet, in most of the world there do now exist Westernized cities in which people avidly aspire to Western ways, and for whom Western-style congregations may be easy to start. In most cases what is needed is not immediately obvious. The first 500 ideas may be poor or divergent. There is no substitute for penetrating, creative strategy, and, yes, serious missiological study. Mike points out: “Many of these churches strongly emphasize that church is a family/community. Large numbers of mega-churches also fit into this category.” I am tempted to use this one thought as an example. The nature of the U.S. church is a questionable place with which to begin. In most of the non-Western world the people we meet are likely to belong, already, to a family in a very conscious, primary sense (almost unknown in the U.S. today). Thus, what is so natural to us—“building a church family”—is quite contrary to their instincts, and may even seem ominous unless, as often happens, the missionary is attracting individuals already marginalized. Building congregations out of individualized people in this country has become a fine art, while in much of the mission world where it may be a questionable strategy—where it is more likely for the churches to grow by adding families, not individuals. Many missionaries have essentially tried to take apart the existing families in order to put together again the U.S. type of “church family,” which is in many ways a very poor substitute. But this is merely one of a hundred examples of the way in which our home-style intuition will not carry effectively in a mission situation. If excitement and travel is all a congregation wants, then short terms and direct involvement in something of their own design will serve nicely. The most heartening edge of this trend is what Mike Phillips indicates—the collaboration with Standard Missions. Pastors and local leaders are, naturally, embroiled in a constant tension between what will be fun and challenging and meaningful to their own people and what will make sense in a radically different setting. If, in their youthful exuberance, they discover things are VERY much more complicated than they expected, their mission interest may wilt as fast as it bloomed. See the editorial in this issue for more on this aspect of the whole question. If what Paul understood to be needed in his outreach to the Greeks had been easily explainable to the Jewish followers of Christ back in Jerusalem we would not have needed the detailed information in the New Testament. Rarely, down through history, has the exact nature of the need on the field been readily explainable to the people within the sending cultural situation.
[ FRONT PAGE ] [ MEET OUR STAFF ] [ USCWM ] |
|
|
