Guest Blogger: (Part 2) Working with people who are already in a community for the sake of the gospel
Yesterday, I published the first part of this guest post about working with people who are already in a community without making them dependent on outsiders. The post was written by Jonathan who is currently living in a community and is watching what is happening among the people of that community when outsiders come in. Even the best of intentions can lead to problems of dependence. (See Part 1 at the link above for Jonathan’s description of his work in this community.)
Here is part 2 of our interaction:
————————————
Question (from Alan): Your situation does sound similar to many situations related to “foreign missionaries.” You said that the short termers “pay into the ministry.” What is this money used for? Why do you think “not very much local ministry is being raised up”? What do you think is causing that?
Answer (from Jonathan)
The local church plant cannot afford salaries for church positions. The summer programs and short terms pay for salaries, along with additional fundraising to keep things going. The pastor is pretty clear about what the money is for – no subterfuge at all. I’ve argued, are we ‘creating’ work for short termers to do – just for the money? The last time I brought this up, I was told we need to have a ‘long term’ conversation about that. Originally the church was NOT dependent on short termers, but was not told what changed.
A few non white leaders coordinate the short termers, but all the interns and the majority of short termers are white. The church is half white, poor, and the neighborhood is very poor. At first I didn’t think so, but now I believe there’s a dependence on the outside money; from leaders AND neighborhood members. The financial piece is troubling. Even if all the money and personel were non white, I still feel that 1 Theassalonains 4:11-12 should be followed.
Disturbingly in our city, New Orleans, I know of three other miniseries in poor neighborhoods all run by different organizations and denominations; this is the model. Outsiders come in, lead, fundraising activities, bring short termers in then… Show me how the people of the culture lead, and you’ll be hard pressed to find someone who grew up in that neighborhood or city; leading. Lack of Discipleship. My theory is the material needs in urban areas are so great that the educated folks began the programs and fundraising, but those become the idol.
Question: Do you have any suggestions as to how discipleship would help locals get involved in ministering to their >own neighbors without depending on outside help?
Answer
I think this is a tough one that takes time. IN the spiritual realm it’s a matter of showing someone that Christ is all sufficient but our tendency is to do program based things, which are needed (literacy, food, etc).
Currently my wife and I talk often about this as she’s away on sabbatical. When she returns, we plan reach out hospitality-wise. We’ve invited people to our home, but our perception is this may be a class hurdle (we got the nice house and they’re on subsidies attitude). So we’re trying to find ways to go to their home (i.e., playing with the kids, hanging out on their porch).
Clearly things have to be Holy Spirit led. It’s so hard to wait and hear from God when you see so many physical needs. We do address physical needs: food, (we have to be careful with) money, helping with errands, and medical emergencies.
We see things more relationally then programmatically. I don’t come from a simple gathering background but it seems applicable here. Follow the Holy Spirit, Build Small via relationships. I think it’s key to let myself and new disicples see that it’s God doing it and not a human person, ministry, or aid group.
Guest Blogger: (Part 1) Working with people who are already in a community for the sake of the gospel
A few weeks ago, in response to my post “Why can’t we work together for the gospel?” Jonathan left a very intriguing comment. In the comment, he said that he is currently “living this out” in his neighborhood and has seen how easy it is to “drop money and personnel” into a context. But, it is much harder to live among the people in a community and trust God to work through them.
In response to that comment, I emailed Jonathan asking for more information about his situation. That email started a thread that was very helpful for me. I asked him if I could publish this as a “guest post,” and he agreed. I’ll publish our interaction as two posts, with the second part being published tomorrow…
————————————
Question (from Alan): I’d love to hear more about how you’re working with “locals”…
Answer (from Jonathan)
My wife and I joined a neighborhood church that’s been around for 10 years, but is a plant of an para church organization. We’ve been there five years and since 2009 have chosen, with a few others, to live in a neighborhood that is plagued with crime, drugs, poverty, and some prostitution. BUT we see God at work.
My frustration comes from the short termers. They help run a day camp, provide games to the neighborhood kids in the evening, as well as pay into the ministry. Two issues immediately arose. I’ve asked, “What would happen if these teams didn’t come?” Clearly, there’s the financial aspect, because the Church (sigh) is dependent on the outsider. Second, in my opinion, not very much local ministry is being raised up, as things are coordinated by a few locals, but all the money and personel leave after a time. Honestly, I look at it a little differently now that I LIVE with my neighbors. I’m not driving in or stopping by. Dealing with my neighbors is on the job training in ‘Loving my neighbor’.
Without complaining here’s the challenge: How do you give believers not from our community the cross cultural experience, without all the voyeurism or vertical relationship. I’m seeing these last few years that it’s one thing to organize a program for the poor than to live with and friend the poor. All the isms are very real when the person you’re serving is your friend.
I think to minister in some of these urban environments (ok all) we need more discipleship. One Sun morning I didn’t go to my local service, but walked around and prayed about 10:30AM. I saw what I saw everyday-Life. I counted five church services in session, but I still saw drunks staggering, people loitering, not sure if I saw the dealing that morning, but for everyone not going to a service-life as usual. It tells me, “We need a different approach to engage people physically where they are.” My wife has a vision of living water flowing out of our neighborhood. My vision is that someone will call 911 not because a crime is committed, but because there are too many people assembling praising God.
Question: Your situation does sound similar to many situations related to “foreign missionaries.” You said that the short termers “pay into the ministry.” What is this money used for? Why do you think “not very much local ministry is being raised up”? What do you think is causing that?
Answer: Coming tomorrow…
Is God opening a door of opportunity for us in The Congo?
It looks like God may be opening a door of opportunity for us to serve in the Democratic Republic of Congo. And, when I say us, I don’t mean just me and my family. I mean that God may be providing an opportunity for the church to connect with other believers and other churches in the Congo.
Let me explain. First, as you can probably guess (for those of you who know that Dave Black is my PhD mentor), I’ve been greatly influenced by Dave and BeckyLynn Black’s work in Ethiopia. (You can find more information about that in their “Ethiopia Files.”)
As a church and as a family, we have worked with the Blacks to serve the people of Alaba, Ethiopia for several years. I even spent a couple of weeks in Alaba two years ago. I love the way they work through existing relationships and in the work that God is already doing in Ethiopia.
(I hope this relationship and working partnership continues! One of our brothers from Ethiopia is even planning to meet with us in a few weeks.)
Now, some friends of ours are planning to move to the Congo. Their work will primarily be in the area of Bible translation, but they will also be meeting and working with local believers. Hopefully, if God leads us to continue in this direction, they will be able to connect us to our brothers and sisters in that area of the Congo. I see this as being a two-way partnership, so I’m just as excited about what we can learn from them as what we can do for them.
We’ve looked into partnerships like this before. But, this time, there’s something present that has always been missing before: an existing relationship!
For example, I think about Paul getting ready to go to Rome. He had never visited Rome before, but there were brothers and sisters in Rome (at least Prisca and Aquila) with whom he already had an existing relationship. When he traveled to Rome, he would be continuing that relationship as well as building new relationships with people that they introduced him to.
If we travel to the Congo, we will be continuing our relationship with our friends, and at the same time, building new relationships with our brothers and sisters in Christ who live in that area.
So, this could be an exciting time for us. We will learn more after our friends move in a few weeks and as they get settled in and begin learning about what God is already doing in that area of the Congo.
But some men joined him and believed
Biblical scholars, theologians, missionaries, church planters, and plenty of other people who don’t have any kind of title study Acts 17:16-34 to learn about proclaiming the gospel to different contexts. Of course, in the Book of Acts, we read about Paul and others proclaiming the gospel in many different contexts, and this is only one of those. However, this is one of the only examples in Scripture of someone proclaiming the gospel in a non-Jewish or a Jewish majority context.
I do love the way that Paul begins at a point that the people around the Areopagus would understand. Then, he works toward a simple statement about repentance, judgment, righteousness, and resurrection. Well, it’s simple in the fact that it was a very short statement. In fact, his entire “speech” was probably very short. At the point that Paul mentioned the resurrection, the crowd reacted strongly.
And, this is the point that I’d like to consider in this post. You see, while this passage can help us understand something about proclaiming the gospel in different cultural contexts, it can also help us understand an important point about helping people follow Jesus as his disciples – what could be called “discipleship.”
When Paul mentions “resurrection,” Luke tells us what happened next:
Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. (Acts 17:32-34 ESV)
Paul did not tell the crowd at the Areopagus everything there was to know about God, Jesus, the gospel, etc. He made a simple proclamation. Some were interested in hearing more, so he told them more. However, even all of those were not disciples. Only some join Paul in following Jesus, of whom Luke mentions one man and one woman.
It’s clear that Paul told the “some” more than he told the crowds at the Areopagus. In order to do that, he had to have spent more time with the “some” than he did with the crowd. Of course, this sounds very similar to what Jesus did with the crowds and the people who followed him. There are other examples in Scripture as well.
What do we see in this example of Paul at the Areopagus in Athens?
1) Short, to the point – but limited – proclamation that is understandable by the crowds listening.
2) More information given to those who are interested.
3) Most time spent with those who actually go beyond “interest.”
Now, remember that Paul is considered a “missionary.” A missionary. An apostle. An evangelist. Yet, it seems like only a small amount of his time and energy is spent in actually proclaiming the gospel to unbelievers. More of his time is spent with believers – the church.
What do you think? Am I reading too much into this passage and similar accounts in Scripture? Or, is this a good pattern for us to consider? How do we see this pattern followed or not followed today?
Being one of them – not just pretending to be or trying to be
A friend of ours lives in Milan, Italy. She moved there a few years ago with a missions organization. They paid for her to stay in Milan for two years. When her “term” was completed, she could not continue in the same city with the same missions organization. But, instead of returning to the United States or moving to another place with the missions organization, she decided to get a job and stay in Milan.
Recently, she was interviewed about her experiences. She shared the interview with us via email, and she allowed me to post parts of the interview here.
In this first part, she explains the struggles she originally had with “contextualization”:
For the first six months of my term, I mostly just observed and learned from them. One of my observations was the ease they had in building relationships. Even though I was on a “platform” I still found some difficulty in that I didn’t live life exactly as they did. I did not have to leave my house and get onto a crowded metro at 7:30 in the morning. I didn’t feel the same level of stress and work fatigue they felt. I wasn’t on their rhythm. As a result, even though I loved them and was all about “contextualization,” it only went so far as I did not completely and authentically live like them. I also saw that they were able to express a deeper incarnational testimony and model what a normal life “on mission” looks like.
In the next part of the interview, she explains how this all changed once she got a job and begin working to support herself:
I have loved my life as a “normal person.” It has changed everything both for me personally and in my ministry. For me personally, being legitimately and authentically on the same “rhythm” as everyone else has completely changed my view of “contextualization.” Contextualization is no longer something that I have to be intentional in doing — I AM part of the context. I feel their pain and joy. I am one of them — not just pretending to be or trying to be.
I feel like it has been an answer to prayer for me spiritually as well. Though I do see a place for vocational ministry and know that God calls us to different things, I noticed in my personal walk with Christ as a missionary that the gospel became my job. It tragically became something I “sold.” If I were a banana salesmen who focused all day on selling bananas, the last thing I would want to do at night would be to sit down and eat a plate of bananas. Though I knew it should not be like this for a missionary — and with many I know it is not — I found that the lines between my categories of work and the truth that changed everything in me often got blurred. Now I live in Milan, Italy as a person who has been radically changed and transformed by the gospel of Christ, placed in community with others, and has the privilege of being part of God’s mission to glorify himself on the earth. I cannot help but testify, NOT because it is my job, but because it is my life. People don’t distrust me when I do because I am a normal person and this is what I believe. They don’t see me as someone with a “hidden agenda” to convert them. Of course knowing they do not see me that way makes me even more bold in my testifying!
I love that one part: “Contextualization is no longer something that I have to be intentional in doing — I AM part of the context. I feel their pain and joy. I am one of them — not just pretending to be or trying to be.”
Do you know that for many church leaders, the same problem exists. They are not really part of the context. They are not “one of them.” They know it, and the people know it.
I wonder if all church leaders would find the same freedom and acceptance that my friend has found if they stepped away from “vocational ministry,” began working for their own support, and continued ministering to the people that God brings into their life… as one of them.
Why can’t we work together for the gospel?
This morning, Dave Black posted a new essay called “Can We Please Do Church Planting Cooperatively?”
The post is about working together with “nationals” – i.e., working with people who already live in a certain area. For example, he and his wife work with Ethiopians in Ethiopia. I know… it sounds obvious, right?
But, this is not always the case.
At one point, he quotes from his new book Will You Join the Cause of Global Missions?:
Unfortunately [I continue], many U.S. mission teams fail to coordinate their efforts with the churches of host locations. Recently a student of mine mentioned that his local church was going to plant a new church in China. I asked him, “Have you ever considered simply going to China and asking the existing churches how you can come alongside them and help?” Failing to understand and connect with God’s already-at-work global purpose is one of the greatest mistakes we can make as churches. More and more local churches in America are forging effective partnerships with local churches in foreign nations, asking how they can best serve the needs in those countries. When done well, everybody benefits through this kind of beautiful partnership, and Christ is honored as His people submit to one another in love.
I wonder if one of the biggest reasons that we don’t work with others on “global missions” is because we don’t work with others on “local missions.” The church has become so sectarian that we tend to isolate ourselves, even (and especially) when it comes to gospel work.
You can and must become a leader in church unity… but it may come at a cost
Last week, Ed Stetzer published an interview with Jason Dukes, the author of a new book called Beyond My Church: Thinking and Living So That the World Might Know. (See his post “Beyond My church: A Book Interview with Jason C. Dukes.”)
I like the idea of the book – encouraging followers of Jesus Christ to look beyond the fences created by their “local church” in order to interact with the church of God that is all around them.
In the second question/answer of the interview, Ed and Jason touch on a topic that (I believe) is one of the main hindrances to actualized (real, relational) unity among the body of Christ:
Is this a book that only pastors and paid church leaders can appreciate, or can every follower of Jesus begin to think and live beyond their church, and if so, how?
It is absolutely a book for every follower of Jesus. Two reasons why. First, unfortunately, many pastors live either under the pressure to “grow their church,” which is an extremely anti-biblical thought, or they live stifled by their own insecurities, which creates a sense of competition and distrust between local leaders. Often times, our distinctive understandings of secondary theological ideals hinder pastors’ connection, as well. Thus, it is imperative that every follower of Jesus lead out in cultivating for unity around mission among followers of Jesus in a city, therefore encouraging their pastors to emphasize and prioritize for it.
This can be done in the very ways that they cultivate for “beyond me” living in their families, among their neighbors, in the marketplace, among leaders in the city where they live, and even in the ways that they think of the church in the city. There is actually one chapter per each of those topics in the book, offering suggestions for how “beyond MY church” thinking and living can be cultivated. We need a vision for “on earth as it is in heaven” in the communities where we live, not a vision for succeeding as individual local churches. And followers of Jesus who make up those local church families can be key catalysts in enabling and allowing their leaders to feel secure to think and live “beyond MY church.”
Yes, I agree completely that “it is imperative that every follower of Jesus lead out in cultivating for unity around mission among followers of Jesus in a city.”
However, we must admit that most modern church organization are leader-centric (pastor-centric), even if they do not want to be. So, the influence and desires of the leader(s) carries much weight among the believers who see themselves as part of that “local church.”
What would happen if these followers of Jesus Christ “led out in cultivating unity around mission among followers of Jesus in a city”? Well, they may start giving to needs other than their local church budget. They may start meeting and/or serving with others at times when their local church meets. They may start hanging out with and fellowshiping with people who disagree with their local church statement of faith or covenant.
What is “the pastor” going to say about that?
While I know there are exception, I’ve seen many, many examples of church leaders who are cheerleaders for unity among the body of Christ, as long as it doesn’t affect their own “local church.”
Sharing our life in Christ together and the mission of God
On this blog, I primarily focus on the gathering of the church… that is, times when believers gather together with one another.
These times are extremely important to the life and maturity of the children of God. We need one another, and we need to spend time with one another – or, as I like to say it, share our lives with one another. I believe this is part of the mission of God – seeing his children grow in their understanding of him, their trust in him, their unity with one another, and their way of life in demonstrating who he is.
However, there is another extremely important aspect of our life in Christ: taking part in the mission of God toward those who are not (yet) followers of Jesus Christ.
Last week, I wrote a couple of posts about “organic church life.” But, what about “organic church life” towards those who are not in Christ? How does our relationship with God and with one another stretch out to those who are not (yet) part of God’s family?
I’ve written about this some before, and I will probably write about this more in the coming weeks. But, for now, I want to ask you this question:
Do you have any examples of how sharing your lives with other brothers and sisters in Christ resulted in a positive impact for Christ among those who are not (yet) followers of Jesus?
How much organization and administration is necessary to finance global missions?
There are different ways to answer the question in the title of this post: How much organization and administration is necessary to finance global missions? Different denominations and church organizations have answered this question in different ways, but most of the answers focus on some type of organization with administrative requirements, as evidenced by the proliferation of missions boards and sending organizations.
However, Felicity at “Simply Church” offers a different perspective in her post “How are simple/organic churches financing mission?”
When I first read the title of her post, I was expecting a “how to” post with examples explaining what different groups are doing. But, that is NOT what her post is about.
Instead, Felicity cites results from a doctoral dissertation which compared the giving patterns and missions financing patterns of different churches. Here are some of the findings:
Of those surveyed, 51.6% of those involved in organic/simple church gave 11%-25% of their income to charity, and 7.5% gave greater than 25%. In other words, almost 60% of people are giving more than a tithe. (The typical American Christian gives less than 3%.)
The money spent on the internal administration of simple/organic churches is very low: 59.1% of the participant’s house/simple church spent less than 1% of their total annual proceeds on internal needs, and 15.1% spent 2%-5%. In other words, more than 70% say their simple church spends less than 5% on administration costs. (The typical institutional church spends 85% of all church activity and funds directly toward the internal operations of the congregation, such as staff salaries, building payments, utility and operating expenses.)
People in simple/organic churches are giving more, but their churches are spending less on internal needs, so more money is made available for Kingdom purposes. Their money goes towards benevolence and missions.
Moving away from the “traditional,” “institutional,” “simple,” and “organic” labels for a moment, these results raise some good questions.
For example, are we actually helping missions activity by requiring those activities and individuals to be funded through a missions organization? Is it actually possible for us to spend less on ourselves (funding our programs, our meeting locations, our leaders, etc.) in order to give more money to help those in need and to help those traveling from place to place to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ?
What other questions do these results raise?
Just sign on the line, and you too can be a Christian
Miguel at “God-Directed Deviations” has started a very interesting series that he calls “Why I’m No Longer the Sort that ‘Closes the Deal,’ in Evangelism.” (You can read “Part I” and “Part II” of his series now.)
He is stepping through how his thinking about evangelism and, especially, “closing the deal” has changed. In the first post, Miguel explains, “I used to be the sort that asked others to raise their hands in the pews (with all heads bowed and all eyes closed of course) after a sermon to ‘accept Christ.'”
In the second post, he writes:
I can recall, during a major evangelistic campaign when 1000′s came forward to “Accept Christ,” how I felt. Having witnessed these miraculous events before, and having wept and worshiped God for doing such a wondrous things in the lives of others, I couldn’t help but think how grateful I was to be a part of it. But, on this particular occasion I asked one of the ministry leaders, “How many of these that came forward do you think have truly received Christ?” Without hesitation, and matter-of-factly, he said, “about 3%.” When I asked, “What about the other 97%?” He replied with a certain incredulity, “Look, we can only get them to a point of decision, the rest is up to God.” Sadly, at the time, and because I didn’t know any better, I accepted it a a reasonable response. It did, however, and for the years to follow, remain like a splinter in my soul irritating but still ignored. I learned many more methods, manners, and modes of “evangelism,” in the years that followed, and felt pretty good that I could make them better. I could take what I saw missing in these techniques and improve on them, and make them more “biblical.”
Now, please do not misunderstand the reason for this post. I am not condemning people who follow the types of evangelistic methods that Miguel talks about in these posts. (And, from Miguel’s comment to me, it is clear that he is not condemning the people or the methods either.)
Instead, I have a much different purpose in pointing you to Miguel’s posts. Looking back over the years that I attended evangelism training sessions, led evangelism groups, taught evangelism methodologies, and made evangelistic visits to people, I recognize that all of this effort and all of those resources resulted in very, very few new followers of Jesus Christ. Oh, there were many, many decisions, and, yes, there was “follow-up.” But, like in Miguel’s story, the decisions rarely resulted in the people actually beginning to be a disciple of Jesus (as far as anyone could tell).
So, I want to ask you 2 things: 1) Do your experiences match mine and Miguel’s, or have you seen better “results”? 2) Have you found a different way to help people begin to follow Jesus Christ that seems to be more “effective”?
(I put “results” and “effective” in quotes because I realize that the results and effects are truly up to God. That said, I’m not sure God is interested in us spinning our wheels doing things that are not actually helping people follow Jesus.)