Over the last couple of days I’ve been at the Catalyst Conference held at the Gwinnett Arena just a few miles from my home. It was good to see Kevin Bussey and Chuck Bryce both of blogging fame and reconnect with some pastors and friends who I had not seen in a while. The conference, IMO, was good but not outstanding. It seemed that the speakers were given less time than in years past and many of the speakers were repeats from Q that I had attended earlier this year.
Yesterday, there was luncheon hosted by the International Mission Board of the SBC. I was able to see some old friends, folks that I met during my earlier travels to the trustee meetings. Our staff was blessed to sit with an M from Barcelona and hear just a bit of his story. We also got to know the co-pastor and two members from Grace Community Church in Clarksville, TN.
The meeting was hosted by the multi-talented and apparently multi-purpose Ed Stetzer whose topic was “Speaking in Tongues.” Since we were not all SBCers in the room (at least I don’t think we all were), I thought we might see a demonstration, but no. His subject, of course, was that some from every nation, tribe, tongue and people were going to bring praise to God in eternity and what were we doing about it??
He quoted an estimate that 3,000 additional missionaries (I assume from any and all denoms) could engage all the remaining unreached peoples in the world. This is thrilling, but is it the answer? Following the conference, it dawned on me that my denomination has more than 3,200 church in Georgia alone. The national structure of the Southern Baptist Convention has more than 45,000 churches. Unless my math deceives me (and that is a distinct possibility), that is 15 local, SBC-related bodies of Christ for every UPG left on the planet.
Let’s assume for a moment that NO more M’s are sent through agencies, but instead, churches large and small partner together in groups of fifteen (“pods”) to adopt and engage these peoples. Let’s assume that agencies are willing to spend some of their manpower on training these churches in missiological principles that better prepare them for engagement. Let’s assume that these churches restructure their giving to create the UPG as a level one priority, even if it means cutting the fat from the denom portion of their annual budgets. Let’s assume that some M’s on the field become the hands and feet of this “Pod” of churches who commit to send teams regularly until a viable church planting movement happens, or until viable “church at Jerusalem” is begun.
There are enough churches in Georgia to engage all the remaining UPG’s. There are enough in the southeast to engage them multiple times over. Why are we waiting for another 3,000 people to commit full time?
We need both. Partnerships are the heart of the SBC, and that’s why I like your ideas here because they seem to speak right to the original intent of SB missions. The IMB has been focusing a lot lately on creating stronger direct partnerships with local churches, and this needs to continue. Churches need to have a world focus, and directing the focus of “pods” towards particular groups is a great idea.
But, there need to be people working full-time on the ground with those 3000 UPGs. There are an abundance of m’s in reached areas, when there are groups that currently still have no witness. We need people with a desire to sacrifice the rest of their lives to working with these groups, and I pray that God will direct the IMB and other similar organizations to do whatever it takes to find those people and equip them for their calling.
I trust in God’s sovereignty for engaging these groups and know that He will be faithful in drawing the individual to this calling, empowering the local churches to support them and using the larger organizations to train and equip them for service.
Comment by Ranger — October 6, 2007 @ 8:10 am
Good thoughts. Nice to see another “missional” kind of person in Gwinnett too. I’m in G- county as well. Drop me a note sometime…we’ll hit the Waffle House, drink coffee and talk “missional.”
Comment by Jim — October 6, 2007 @ 8:14 am
Ranger-
I agree that both are important, but your point brings up another issue and that is whether all the M’s on the ground need to be SBC or even North American? Most SBC churches still hold the idea that, “We do missions through the CP.” I do not believe that particular paradigm alone is the long term solution.
Imagine what would happen if you were aware of a group that was unengaged by any M of our denomination, but there was a presence from some Swiss non-denominational M. Then, you refer a pod of churches to that person/couple for a partnership. Now imagine that no partnership first asks, “Is it SBC?” My, how quickly we could engage the rest of the UPGs.
I know that this is all complex and I don’t mean to make it sound simplistic, but I’m not sure that stateside churches are even asking the right questions at this point.
Jim-
Absolutely.
Comment by Marty Duren — October 6, 2007 @ 9:18 am
Marty-
I’m with you on this one. I’ve been thinking about this very thing with our church. The beauty of this philosophy is that it targets and reaches unreached peoples while allowing churches of every size to engage in the process.
So thinking about that, here’s my question. How do we make it happen? Do we need to create an organization that organizes and equips local churches in these “pods” that you’re referring to? Or do we wait for some other organization to catch up to the idea?
I’m ready to engage, I don’t want to wait too long but I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
Comment by Micah Fries — October 6, 2007 @ 9:59 am
“Both” sounds right to me.
Micah, Not an organization but a movement. It would seem we have an “organization” where this would be RELATIVELY easy to implement, the local Associations. Start with each of us saying to our DOM that we want to spearhead a movement to get pods of 15 churches together to “Claim A People” (CAP, Hmmm…) At least it would be a start.
Marty, I think we should concentrate on reaching all the people groups with our Baptist Christians. My reasoning is not theological but practical. If we aim for all and miss it by a little perhaps others will “pick up the slack” and we will get the job done.
Comment by chuck bryce — October 6, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Chuck-
While I appreciate the need for a movement as opposed to “an organization” I guess the reason I mention it is that I’m unsure how we are going to identify the UPG’s in a strategic fashion so as to not reduplicate efforts and additionaly, how we will connect churches in “pods” to do the work, unless of course, our “pods” are only made up of churches that are located in close geographic proximity to each other.
Comment by Micah Fries — October 6, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Micah-
I’m sure that both IMB and NAMB could facilitate this strategy to some degree, if that’s the way that some wanted to go (as Chuck has suggested above). The question that churches need to ask is, “How many levels of b’cracy are acceptable in our attempt to accomplish the mission?”
Example: What if I used this blog to ask for 15 churches to be involved in T–a, agreeing to meet together either in person or via teleconference for prayer, strategy, planning, etc? What if those churches expressed interest and an ultimate commitment to partner together?
Of course, there would have to be “Rules of Engagement,” so that progress could be made. If two churches inquired and then one decided to partner in Indonesia, for instance, then no harm is done by the declination and the other church may actually commit to partner.
This recruitment, naturally, would be called, “Podcasting.”
Chuck-
I think it would be beneficial for all Christian entities who send to get together and find out who’s going where and when, so that there is not a bunch of overlap just so that “we” can have a presence.
The limitation with the SBC Associational approach, IMO, is that they will always be looking to partner with IMB M’s. With this comes the distinct possibility that they might miss God’s specific plan altogether.
Comment by Marty Duren — October 6, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Marty-
I’m tracking with you, however the thought comes to mind that while the organic method would seem to probably be effective in facilitating engagement, it would also be difficult to track and thus remove the potential for overlapping efforts. I guess that’s why I see the need for sort of loose organization in order to strategically position all the involved churches across the UPG’s.
Comment by Micah Fries — October 6, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
I just realize that I didn’t say what I meant very well. Instead of “remove the potential for overlapping efforts” I should have said, “and therefore it might lend itself to the overlapping of efforts.”
Sorry for the confusion.
Comment by Micah Fries — October 6, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Marty,
It was great seeing you this week. What a conference. You should have been there for Craig Groschel.
Comment by Kevin Bussey — October 6, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Kev-
How do you know that I wasn’t? :^) Well, that’s why we got the DVDs.
Comment by Marty Duren — October 6, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
Marty,
No. I personally don’t think they need to be SB m’s. I think we’ve talked about this in the past, but even though we’ve only been over here for a short time we are constantly working with people from other denominations and organizations. Some of those organizations already have the mindset that you have when it comes to partnering and empowering local churches to reach UPGs. Others of us are getting there…slowly. I was just focusing on the SB side of things because that’s where most of us fit in, and where most of us can make an impact.
As for the North American thing, I definitely don’t think all of the m’s we support need to be North American. I mean, let’s be honest here…if you’re doing work in Myanmar who is more effective? The white middle-class American struggling with the language or a Thai believer who is much more familiar with Asian culture and may already know Burmese or even a more specific dialect? Obviously the latter. We need to be supporting m’s that have access that we Americans don’t have. There are literally millions of Chinese believers who desire nothing more than to get to the Middle East to serve, but are unable because of funding, lack of quality training, lack of official papers (which can be had for money), etc. We need to be supporting these people too…and quickly.
What I meant by suggesting both was that we need both direct partnerships between churches and UPGs, direct partnerships between local churches and career m’s and organizations to strategize, focus and assist the local churches and m’s toward reaching the lost most effectively. After all, a Gordon Fort or Jerry Rankin knows more about effective missions work than you and I will ever comprehend, and they need an avenue both to share that knowledge with younger career m’s and also to strategize the troops for effective service. I think with short term trips, the world getting constantly smaller (in perspective) and pastors starting to think more missionally back in the States that things will change, but that it will be more of tweaking and restrategizing the current system than scrapping it for something new.
We need the IMB, we need the CP, we need direct partnerships, we need short term mission trips, we need short term m’s, we need north American, Asian, European, etc. career m’s, we need a strategy, but more than anything else we need to be willing to follow the lead of God, which may take us down paths that differ from the expected norm.
Comment by Ranger — October 7, 2007 @ 6:45 am
Let me add an addendum to my second paragraph above. Just because the guy in Myanmar is white and can’t speak the language well doesn’t mean God didn’t call him there and doesn’t have a determined purpose for his work. We don’t only need to be supporting non-N. American m’s who are closer to the perspective group, as God calls many of us to places where we are completely inadequate in order to show his power in our weakness.
I believe that fits into the local church responsibility as well. When someone from North America is willing to go and serve among an UPG, then they need to be empowered to serve. I believe this responsibility comes from the local church at first, and continues into larger church partnerships and organizations. Personally, when we first suggested to our pastor that we were feeling led to a particular group, he encouraged us to contact the IMB and ask about opportunities to serve in that group, but always said that if there weren’t opportunities with the IMB that they would get us there so that we could fulfill our calling. I fully believe that they would have followed through with this if the IMB did not need a couple to go to this group. Fortunately, they did and since then we have been brought into the greater strategy of IMB work in our area as well as constantly equipped, prayed for, encouraged, etc. from our local church.
We definitely still need the IMB, but we also definitely need more from the local churches as well so that we can engage all the peoples as quickly as possible.
Comment by Ranger — October 7, 2007 @ 6:55 am
Marty,
It was really cool to meet you in Atlanta. It was kind of strange, because I feel like I’ve known you for a long time through your blog…
Your question is a good one. I’m not sure we can have a totally honest discussion about the subject with IMB folks, because in some ways, it questions the need for professional missionaries.
Full-timers like myself will likely want to say something like, “Churches really need the cultural insight that only a career missionary can offer.” They may be right, but few of us would like to admit that we (the trained experts) could be replaced by (regular old) churches.
But the missionary task has been given to the church. Somewhere along the way, the churches handed that responsibility over to the parachurch professionals and allowed themselves to become “volunteers” in the IMB’s program, deferring to the organization’s strategy and missiology.
I would love to see churches (Biblically faithful ones of all stripes) stepping up and engaging people with the gospel.
Comment by Caleb — October 7, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Caleb-
It was great to meet you as well; glad to see you made it back ok.
I don’t want either you or Ranger to think I’m promoting “bring ’em all home and let local churches take over,” because I’m not. But, with the ease of communication and travel combined with the wealth that we still have in the states, there must be a better way of getting churches on the move which is what I’m promoting.
Comment by Marty Duren — October 7, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Marty, I love the conversation of church /UPG engagement. I am on the run and did not have time to read all the comments.
The problem as I see it is not the IMB or NAMB, but churches. When you get to know the guys who actually do the work with the IMB ( Not the Trustees) they are screaming for churches to engage. Yes they do want churches to take the time to learn strategy and to engage the UPGâ??s with what is needed on the field, not with the needs of the American church. Not many churches are willing to do that.
As a missions pastor what I have seen is not the agencies being the ones stopping us. I see us in the church stopping ourselves. The IMB is simply a facilitator. The church is called to do missions and has chosen to turn over her task to others such as the IMB, Campus Crusade, Navigators and others.
Marty, I have worked with many churches who have NO desire to go to the ethnos. They want to grow â??theirâ? church first. Not sure I see Acts 1:8 as only sequential. Can we not do both? That is grow our churches and go to the ethnos?
I have spoken to pastors who see missions as a drain on their budgets instead of a call from God to work with Him in being glorified among all the peoples ( with an s) of the earth.
Bruce Ashford at SEBTS is doing a great job of training young pastors in a good theology of missions and what it means for the church to engage UPGâ??s. Some churches are getting it. I was with a couple of co-pastors in a church of 50 people a few weeks ago who have 3 j-men in the NAME region and they are sending another one out. Way to go Grant and Nathan!
We have worked with the field guys in NAME for 9 years now. We work freely with field personnel and have done so with success, no bureaucracy, and no compromises to scripture! We work in networks with others churches who desire the same end. No one can stop this except God.
There are Mâ??s out there who are begging for churches to engage with them in deeper ways beyond simple trips. I hope that many will join them.
Comment by Ken — October 8, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Partnership and relationship are foundational. Churches are key; missionaries are called out; agencies are helpful. Churches have the task to reach the nations. Missionaries cannot do it alone and don’t pretend to do it alone. Agencies are helpful in training, strategy development, supervisory issues, vision, direction, combining resources, compiling research, and cooperating. It’s a partnership and all three–church, missionary, and agency form a high-powered team.
Case in point: A northern Virginia pastor calls the IMB. He’s sensing a call–as a pastor and his church and not as a full time missionary–to the “I” people. The IMB has no personnel working among the “I” people and will not for the foreseeable future due to strategic prioritization and placement of current levels of missionary personnel. The IMB–through regional personnel–partners with the church and offers some training and collaboration. The church–already having a predisposition to multiplying itself–overflows into three other partner churches that it had previously planted. Those four churches partner to reach the “I” people. Collaboration continues between church and agency. The network of “I” focused churches grows. To date, some one hundred (100!) churches are focused on the “I” people. The IMB has been helpful in collaborating with the pastor and church, BUT the passion and compulsion to focus on the “I” people is within the church movement. The pastor even sounds like a missionary…he knows the IMB acronymic language. :-) Strategically, he realized that having a presence will be important and so a rotation of four young couples out of the original four churches commit to approximately three months each. When on the ground and in the newly rented apartment amazing discoveries begin to take place. God is at work on the university and through a radio broadcast! In sum, a partnership between church (and church network), short term partner (four church members/missionaries), and agency (IMB) proves that God’s way of partnership is better than any other way.
I, for one, see that the IMB has several things to offer. It is visionary. It is catalytic. It is strategic. It has experience. It has missionaries. But, never forget that the churches are the key.
I have a dream. I envision a revival brought about by this partnership (churches, missionaries, agency) that will fuel a mission movement like never seen. The churches need to be reunited with their calling. To quote from Antioch Revisited…the church has divorced herself from her mission. Missionaries and agency can help. But the responsibility is with the churches.
Case in point: I could go on. I could speak of the REAP strategy begun in Peru and now spreading all across South America. The FOUNDATION of this strategy is collaboration between field personnel and missional churches willing to take on a people group. I could speak of the Strategy Coordinator Church Training in the Middle America/Caribbean Region whereby they covenant to walk along with churches who will commit to a people…or I could speak of the Virtual Strategy Coordinator relationship for Central and Eastern Europe…personnel all across the world on large and small scales are realizing that their missionary calling can be placed on steroids by collaborating through relationship. I could go on. I am excited by the surge I see as agency and missionary embrace churches to get at lostness. Lostness is the point. Lostness is big. It’s going to take all three–churches, missionaries, and agency!
One final word…the IMB has never said it is the exclusive agency to reach the world. However, we want to be all we can be to lead Southern Baptists to be on mission with God! We want to play our part.
Comment by D. Ray — October 9, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
I am late getting in on the dialog, but it is great seeing these kinds of conversations going on. Maybe someone mentioned above (I didn’t read all the comments) but there are already mechanisms in place through the IMB to do the very thing you are talking about.
“Strategy Coordinator Churches” adopt an upg and stick with it until “reached.”. What you are doing is sharing the responsibility amongst several like-minded churches which sounds like a super idea.
We ourselves have a similar project written up to help us “finish the task” here in Guayas. If anyone reading this is interested I will be happy to send you a 2-page summary of what it is we are hoping to accomplish.
Comment by Guy Muse — October 11, 2007 @ 8:10 pm