I recently received an email from a friend who is leading his church into the deep spiritual darkness of a heavily Muslim African country. This is an edited version:
I work with the [target area] regional leadership team, in seeking to penetrate people groups and to help churches go deeper in [this] region. We hope to help them understand what church engagement in an Unreached People Group is all about and how to do it beyond just money.
Our Problem: [Our target] is mainly Muslim and is a level 3 security area. It is difficult to get churches to actually engage this region and the people groups there beyond just CP giving. Most will give to the CP, cheer the missionaries onward, and sometimes take a trip there, but…getting them to engage for the long haul and take on the task to reach a people group is very difficult. That is our goal–long term engagement.
One solution to help bridge the gap: We are hosting a summit in September in Florida where we are seeking to engage churches to develop partnerships in [the target] region. The summit we did in Atlanta 2 years ago was great and had some good numbers (1000 people) had some good training, and some good outcomes, BUT things are changing and I am truly not sure we are on the right track for this summit. We desire it to be valuable for churches.
My Request: Would you be willing to give me some feedback (and thus it also goes to the Regional leaders), on what you think a church, who is not currently engaged, needs to take away from such a conference? Vision? Mainly networking? Information? Relationships? Training? I have spoken to them about this and they would love to hear your thoughts .
We sometimes can get so deep in our stuff that we fail to be able to see clearly what is truly needed from such a meeting. You hear a lot of what pastors are thinking out there. We need a fresh voice to give feedback as to what are some of the take aways needed for churches.
My ideas: First, network churches with similar goals but with differing strengths. This can be done by doing a survey of attendees to be taken up and compared by the leaders. Those pastors or lay leaders can then meet together while still at the summit. By doing this, you get more bang for your buck trip wise and in long term benefit. While one church may be teacher heavy, another might be medical personnel heavy. A combination of both provides for more to be accomplished on a single trip.
Second, encourage churches to make a long term commitment, even if they don’t know what that means in the beginning. Discourage churches that are simply looking to go to a place they have never been. This accomplishes little. Encourage them instead to make a prayer covered commitment in advance to a relationship, not a trip or project. Members with various talents can put them to ministry use on repeat trips to the same area rather than scatter-shot trips all over the globe.
Small churches will have to be encouraged to have faith that God will provide the needed funds to establish that kind of partnership, and that He who has called them is faithful. While a long term commitment requires the expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars, it doesn’t require millions. It may also be at this point that smaller churches can provide people (who have raised their own support) to partner with larger churches who have resources for materials, while the smaller churches work into a position of increasing their own financial resources.
Third, don’t fear networking churches from different parts of the states (or even different countries). The ease of telecommunication will overcome distance to allow churches to plan together and pray together so that twice weekly night meetings are not necessary. Prayer meetings can even take place over conference calls between the team members from different churches, with needs being shared via email when needed.
Fourth, at the Summit have at least one combined session on the Biblical basis for mission and at least one combined session led by a small-medium church pastor whose church is getting it done. Pastors and lay people are woefully ignorant of an accurate theology of mission, so much so that the ignorance in many times is absolute. A survey on the aspect of the character of God will be beneficial. On the second point, since small and medium churches face hurdles that do not exist in mega-churches, those leaders will be better challenged by one of their own rather than facing the “Well, if we were that big we could do something” temptation.
Fifth, give very concrete action steps that a church can take to begin moving toward direct involvement. Part of the hesitancy is uncertainty and many people operate better with clear instructions. Who do I contact? How quickly could we go? How do I get more information? Can someone come to my church and speak to my leadership? How do I sort through all this information to get to the UPG that we might adopt? A systematic, step by step action list might be of assistance to many.
Those are some of my ideas, now is the time for your best ideas–especially you whose churches are getting it done internationally and those of you who are wanting your churches to be involved. My friend will take the best of these ideas to the Regional leaders for their evaluation and potential inclusion in the September Summit. Remember what is being sought: What a church, which is not currently engaged, needs to take away from such a conference? Vision? Mainly networking? Information? Relationships? Training?
I guess offering a free 30GB Video iPod for the best idea would help…but I’m not offering one :^)
Unfortunately, one of the first thngs that will have to be done is to show prior examples of success. In our “never admit failure” climate, most churches will require a battle-proven concept before jumping on board. Prove that you have built a car before and they will help you build another. After the church leadership can see the vision, they must in-turn pass on the vision to the membership. I believe churches are ready to work for long-term goals as long as “growth” toward the goal can be defined and seen. Even as Nehemiah had the people working on the very visible goal of rebuilding the wall, it was still difficult for everyone to “see” the real vision. The completed wall. But focused on their areas, they could measure the growth or movement of their portion and therefore catch the vision of the remaining areas.
I am not a church leader -just a member- and that was my two cents worth.
Keep up the good work, Marty.
Your friend,
Steve H
Comment by Steve H — July 2, 2007 @ 8:37 am
I’m interested to see this conversation play out. I’m in a similar situation with the author of the email. There are members who claim readiness to step up and step out, but even those look forward with trepidation. “That sounds great, preacher. But give us more information.” It’s as if the information keeps coming, but the commitment keeps moving away.
Comment by Benjie — July 2, 2007 @ 9:12 am
Marty…I agree with you…(what’s new?)…BUT (lol)…I don’t think I’d discourage any group wanting to go on a safari…errrrrrr…mission trip…let them come for 10 days or 2 weeks…THEN ask for a long term commitment. I’d expose them to the work…first hand…and then lay it on thick for long term partnerships. if they are still not motivated…well…hey…the missionary got 10 days to 2 weeks of work doneâ?¦a shot in the arm so to speakâ?¦and the kiddies can go home with souvenirs and pics for myspace from the safari…errrrrrrrrr mission trip…
Comment by irreverend fox — July 2, 2007 @ 9:18 am
In my small mostly older baptist church I think the very first step that is needed is prayer that God would break people’s hearts to become involved. I don’t say that to sound like a Sunday School answer but because I know my church. They are very good at giving to missions and have been for a very long time and they think they are fullfilling the great commandment by doing so. I don’t see vision or training or anything like that making a bit of difference until we are convicted of our lack of involvement and repent to God because of it.
David Hardin
Comment by David — July 2, 2007 @ 9:21 am
that should obviously say great commission instead of commandment
Comment by David — July 2, 2007 @ 9:23 am
This is the kind of dialogue that I think will be tremendously beneficial for both missionaries seeking help, and churches Stateside wanting to help. I aplaud this kind of post and am thrilled to see all of us together like this struggling together to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Keep this kind of dialogue flowing!
Comment by Guy Muse — July 2, 2007 @ 9:25 am
Marty,
It sounds like this missionary realizes that an over-reliance upon the CP may actually be a contributing factor to the overall reluctance among church folk to have long-term, hands-on involvement. I think we have a generation or so of re-educating to do. Yes, it is okay to invest our missions $$$ in endeavors, including strategic international partnerships, that are not direct CP giving. But, we are talking about the “third rail” of SB life, aren’t we? ;)
My church has just entered into a four-year commitment to take the Gospel to an unreached people group in the Andes Mountains of Peru. But I don’t think we could have made such a commitment simply by attending a conference in Atlanta. Our IMB personnel brought a small group from my church down on what is called a “Vision Trip.” We spent a few days on the field, encountering the people, meeting the handful of believers in the area, and considering logistics. While there we sought God’s heart with regard to our church’s commitment to the endeavor. God made His will clear to us … right there on the field.
So, beyond networking and conferences, I agree with irreverend fox. A visit to the field is a must.
Marty, I invite your readers to check out the REAP strategy of REAP North and REAP South in Peru. The REAP North site is down for updates. But here is the link for REAP south: http://www.reapsouth.org/ .
Blessings,
Geoff Baggett
http://geoffbaggett.wordpress.com
Comment by Geoff Baggett — July 2, 2007 @ 10:34 am
I think your fifth point is perhaps the most important. I am increasingly convinced that there are a significant number of churches and Christians that are willing to commit to and sacrifice for evangelism and missions if only they knew what to do. Too many conferences provide generalized bullet points that are convincing and convicting but leave the attendee with no concrete action steps that they can put into practice.
Comment by Todd Benkert — July 2, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Great. You’re first post out of the gate and you’re asking us to do your thinking for you! And you’re just baiting us with some 30 iPod. Why not one of the cool new iPhones? I can’t hear you!
This is actually a great starting point for missional discussion. Good stuff.
As a small church with no money, we are trying to do exactly these 5 things. I like the suggestions. We need to be working locally, regionally, and globally all at the same time. And we need to be going instead of just sending money.
Comment by David Phillips — July 2, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Stupid me…where’s Ben Cole?
It’s “Your”, not “You’re”!
Stupid, stupid, stupid
Comment by David Phillips — July 2, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Good post Marty. My experience has been there are missionaries crying for real help and there are chuches that want to make a real difference. However, it is very difficult to connect the two. The red tape or lack of know how often prohibits a real conncetion. As many in our communities are in need of missionaries themselves, the vision of missions will have to be taught and caught. I like the idea of connecting churches together. At our church, we are in dialogue with a larger church that is very involved in missions and ongoing relationships. We hope to go with them and by going realize that “we can” and that “we must” get involved. It seems like long term relationships (As opposed to dropping in and out) will be crucial to making a lasting impact on an unreached people group.
By the way, Your Dad is making progress. He is talking about getting a computer to keep up with what you are writing.
Comment by Chris Reynolds — July 2, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
3 of us went to the Dominican Republic last summer because of a relationship I have with a pastor of a church who goes there on a regular basis. I’m not sure a summit or conference or offer of a safari would have even been on my radar screen.
We’ve committed to a long-term relationship with the folks down there because someone who knows me challenged me to go with him (and he paid my way BTW – no strings attached)
I’m not sure how a large scale version of this would work in short order. Long-term growth I think will be sustainable though.
Comment by Rodney McCarty — July 2, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
Chris-
My Dad will never get a computer–he’ll be looking for a place to put the oil. I’d love to see him on a mission though and get his 71 year old bones off the softball field.
Rodney-
Relationship, relationship, relationship–Amen! How, in a summit setting, can the opportunity for a relationship be fostered?
Geoff-
Thanks for the link.
David @ #4-
I would suggest that you and a laymen go together and take a video camera to document your experience. Show it to the church and get two more volunteers for the next trip.
Another suggestion is to get them involved in Disaster Relief. There are a lot of Sr. Adults involved slopping food and watching kids in almost every disaster area. Lots of folks can get their mind and faith around that before they can going to Afghanistan.
Comment by Marty Duren — July 2, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
*layman*
Comment by Marty Duren — July 2, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
Great Post Marty! Thank you for highlighting this and getting this discussion going. It is interesting that the IMB Mission Statement says that it exists to facilitate the Churches to do mission but we still seem to have a long way to go to make this a reality. Your ideas on the conference are very good.
Here in Middle Earth we have started many people group partnerships. These have been invaluable for nurturing the work here. The partnerships focus prayer, information that leads to sending personnel, and most of all vision for how to reach the pg. Stateside meetings have been very helpful in getting churches on board in real, constructive ways. One caution however: too often a church says, ‘just tell us what to do and we will do it.’ Then when the Richmond office or the on site M does not give them a full on game plan they look for easier ground. This is not faith. The Mission that we are embarking on is not a trip to Mordor, it is a journey to the heart of God. It will change us and challenge every inch of your methodology and theology. It will bring us to complete dependence on Him and it will be opposed at every step.
So, go forward men and seek our Father’s will. He has a plan- find it.
keep these kind of posts and discussions coming Marty- thanks.
Comment by Strider — July 3, 2007 @ 7:35 am
I am the one who asked Marty for feedback. All of your comments so far have been very good. I really want to thank you.
Marty your suggestions are dead on especially #’s 2,4 and #5. Number 5 is so needed with many SBC churches. The CP is great but SBC churches have handed their responsibility over to others (The IMB and NAMB) to do on their behalf and now it is like the church no longer knows how to do missions. Many have not personally taken up the cause themselves. What we run into a lot are churches who are so locally focused and seeking to grow their own world that they have failed to see God’s heart for the ethnos or people groups runs from Genesis to Revelation.
Thanks for your comments and I hope more will jump in on this .
Comment by Ken — July 3, 2007 @ 7:36 am
Ken,
A good word, man. Bold, structure-shaking statement.
I am praying for the day in Southern Baptist life when we realize that “missions giving” does not, necessarily, mean “missions-minded.” There IS so much more to doing missions than proxy giving.
http://geoffbaggett.wordpress.com
Comment by Geoff Baggett — July 3, 2007 @ 8:18 am
i like geoff’s earlier comment…but a question:
how do ‘4-year’ or ‘5-year’ comittments play out? isn’t it the same thing as a scatter-shot mission trip to “someplace new” only stretched out? what about open-ended partnerships? i think what we need is not curiosity, but vision towards something that may very well stretch beyond the “use by” date on most of our church members.
Comment by steve yates — July 3, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Steve-
I agree that partnerships need to be open ended with this caveat: the goal of any church or mission entity should be to work itself out of a job. That is, that the indigenous church should take over all teaching, preaching and mission as soon as it is feasible. For some, that might be 5 years, but for others it could be 15 or more.
Comment by Marty Duren — July 3, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Steve,
I suggest that you check out the REAP strategy. REAP is an acronym for Rapid Entry (short time window) Advance Plan (advance of the Gospel by an indigenous church). It is nothing like a “scatter shot mission trip – spread out…”
Our church has the responsibility to develop a strategic plan to launch and facilitate a church planting movement among our people group, the Panao Quechua of Pachitea Province, Peru.
We’re not just taking one trip a year. We are deploying at least four teams throughout the year to our mission field. We will be doing pastoral and church planting training, as well as large evangelistic events, medical clinics, etc…
Like Marty said, the problem with going beyond four or five years is the issue of dependency. Our immediate goal must be to turn over the responsibilities of discipleship and training to indigenous believers (leaders) as rapidly as possible.
I will be flying down in a couple of months to sit down with our missionary team and plot out our four-year strategic plan.
But, as in all missions, the goal must be for us to plant a biblically sound, strong movement, turn the leadership over to indigenous leaders, and remove ourselves from the field as rapidly as possible.
I anticipate that, once this particular partnership is complete, we will begin another.
Check out a better strategy of the REAP plan here:
http://reapsouth.org/what_is_reap.htm
http://geoffbaggett.wordpress.com
Comment by Geoff Baggett — July 3, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Developing relationships at a summit…… Sounds like a singles bar.
Sometimes relationships are kinda messy, and their beginnings are obscure. Maybe a blog comment, maybe leading to a phone call, then emails, then eating way too many pancakes way too early in the morning with Mr. Wrestling II. (I still need to get you in contact with Carl too…)
Not sure of the methodology, but it has to start with getting to know folks and finding out what drives each of us and how we can get’r’dun together. Probably way too messy for most to want to be involved with, but, kind like some friends I have, it’s worth the effort to try. Not sure how to fabricate that kind of relationship.
I know, I know, thanks for the help…. but then what do you expect from a former engineer, failed construction business owner,unemployed bum, now pastor kinda guy?
Comment by Rodney McCarty — July 3, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
I would think the conference should teach/coach/lead churhces to redefine “success”. A successful partnership isn’t necessarily one that results in hundreds or thousands of “decisions” on every trip. It may. But it most likely won’t. If a church’s goal for foreign missions is a large number of “decisions”, then a partnership with a CPM team probably isn’t their best fit.
To that end, Marty, I agree with your fourth point wholeheartedly.
And it wouldn’t hurt to introduce to the churches how they can be proactive in seeking out partnerships. Unless a church has a direct connection with a team or regional leader, or is in an association with a partnership, I would think that many churches simply don’t know how to go about engaging long-term. The IMB’s VIM site just won’t cut it.
Comment by Stuart — July 3, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Steve,
I’d favor a 4 to 5 year partnership with goals and objectives that recognize the “finite” nature of a “long-term” partnership. The team doesn’t become dependent upon any one church. And the church doesn’t develop “tunnel vision” with regards to the ends of the earth. (The latter being a more likley scenario than the former.)
Comment by Stuart — July 3, 2007 @ 11:29 pm