Seven Criteria for Partnering with Gospel Workers and Organisations

The following seven criteria present a draft check list of questions to help a local church discern where to best apportion support for gospel ministries outside the church. No one criterion should be taken alone but all considered in a balanced way, with some being more important in one situation and others in another.

Let me know if you think I have missed anything out or am muddled in some way!

1.     Gospel Commitment

Does the potential partner have a clear and explicit commitment to the gospel? An affirmation of an evangelical statement of faith or doctrinal basis, such as that of the UCCF or Affinity, is essential.

2.     Relational Proximity

How close, relationally, is the potential partner to the church? One might conceptualise this criterion as a set of concentric circles radiating out from the church, with members themselves being at the centre. A non-member who is well known by many members is closer than one who is known by only a few. A member of a sister church in town may be considered closer than one who is from a distant part of the country.

3.     Ministry Suitability

Has this person or organisation been assessed and endorsed by our church or by a church with which we are affiliated? The assessment process must be judged to be appropriate to the role being envisaged. Someone who would not be considered suitable for, say, youth ministry in their home church, should not be approved for such a ministry elsewhere.

4.     Service Faithfulness

Does the person or organisation have a track record of faithfulness in service? In the case of an individual, there should be evidence of faithfulness in the small things before they are given greater responsibility. 

5.     Strategic Significance

Does support for this partner have a developmental effect on others? Partnership with a leadership training programme or theological college, for example, would be expected to have a broadly fruitful influence through the ministries of those who are trained. An evangelistic work that places a high value on the creation of churches would have a higher strategic significance than that of one that takes a more hit or miss approach, especially if that church is in a community with little previous gospel witness.

6.     Adequate Management

Does the potential partner demonstrate clear and adequate accountability in the management of personnel and the use of financial resources, etc.? In the case of an organisation, good governance is crucial. In the case of an individual or family, there needs to be a clear structure and procedure to care for their needs while in service.

7.     Genuine Need

Is there a particular need that has become known to the church? All potential partners would likely be able to inform us of various needs that they are aware of in connection with their ministry, but some individuals and families, and even institutions may have acute needs. Unforeseen needs may arise, such as for a new car or hospital costs, for which the partner is not prepared. 

Let the Earth Be Glad

 

A sermon series, preached at Freeschool Court Church, to help the local church understand God's ultimate purpose in salvation and our part in joining with him in that work.

1. Declare His Glory (Psalm 96)
2. Discipling the Nations (Matthew 28:17-20)
3. God's Great Concern (Acts 1:8) (not recorded; ms available on request)
4. Witnesses to the World (Acts 1:8)
5. How God Uses Ordinary People (Acts 11:19-21)
6. How God Builds His Church (Acts 11:22-26)
7. The Church in Action (Acts 11:26b-30)
8. The Church in Action II (Acts 13:1-3)
9. The Honourable Church (3 John)
10. God's Ultimate Purpose (Habakkuk 2:14)

Should All Missionaries Be Elders?

Phil Remmers has recently published an article - Biblical Eldership and Global Missions A Vital and Necessary Union - on the 9Marks website, on the selection, training, and funding of missionaries, and especially on the relationship between missionaries and their sending church.

Remmers has had extensive experience of ministry in Asia and now is involved in publishing reformed literature in many Asian languages.

He writes many good things in the course of the article, for which I am thankful. The comments on funding are especially helpful, though hardly groundbreaking - people have been saying stuff like this for decades. But it is worth banging on about the broken system that has been developed and continues to be pursued. In fact, in my opinion he could have gone much further. Why, for instance, is a family needing $8000 a month for their salary? I can imagine some situations - ministry in Singapore or Tokyo, for instance, where this level of support is necessary. But if, as I have observed myself many times among certain mission organisations, the family is living in a posh compound with a brand new imported jeep, in a community in which even well off locals can only dream of that lifestyle, further questions need to be asked.

He says that at least half of the missionaries he encountered in his ministry location (unspecified for security reasons) should not have been there at all because they were unqualified for the ministry and in any case tended only to stay for 2-3 years and leave without bearing fruit. And that is not counting 'short-term missionaries'.

Although I can see how he can come to such a judgment, I am uneasy about this. He affirms, in a footnote, that God is sovereign in salvation. But he nevertheless is happy to sit in judgment on the fruitfulness of others in ministry. How can he have sufficient knowledge about the relationships these folk had developed in their short time? And even if he did have that sort of data, real spiritual fruit is often unseen. I hope he is not ashamed on the Last Day for having written that.

The main burden of the paper, though, is to argue that all missionaries should first of all be elders of the local church back home before they are appointed to their ministry overseas. I get the sentiment. After all, as the argument goes, why would we send out people for ministry in hard places overseas if we wouldn't have them be involved in ministry at home? Fair question. He has diagnosed a serious missionary malady.

But Remmers' remedy is unbiblical, naive, and worldly.

Unbiblical

In Acts 13 the Antioch church sent out two of their 'prophets and teachers' - Barnabas and Saul. There does seem to be something of a paradigmatic character to this story, situated as it is in the unfolding story of the expansion of the gospel to the ends of the earth. And yet Paul was happy to have all sorts on his apostolic team: Luke the doctor, for example; Timothy, who, we are told, was a 'disciple' when he was taken on by Paul as a travelling companion (Acts 16:1-3); Erastus, who along with Timothy is called Paul's 'helper' (Acts 19:22).

When Paul left Corinth he was accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:18). Now I suspect (since this is on 9Marks) that Remmers would not be happy with female elders. So what does he do with Priscilla? Is she not a missionary?

Naive

This leads on to the training of missionaries. The best missionaries the author has encountered tended to have been trained at Master's Seminary, where the training is explicitly for elders. Now, as I have said, much that he says here is valuable. Better, he says, to have fewer, better trained, and proven missionaries, than the mess that he has seen.

But he overstates his case. And the reason he does that is this: he has not diagnosed the malady correctly. The disease is much more serious than he realises. It is not just the two- to three-year, untrained, unqualified missionaries who are caught up in the problem. It is a whole lot more, including, perhaps Remmers himself.

Worldly

Remmers is operating out of a paradigm for cross-cultural ministry that has been weighed in the balances and been found wanting.

It comes out in numerous ways and is exemplified in the uncritical use of the term 'missionary'. As I have explained here before, this term, and the notion it represents is seriously problematic. It is not a biblical word and continues to have much baggage that seriously compromises a healthy approach to cross-cultural ministry, including the financial aspect mentioned earlier.

Remmers observes that Master's Seminary has no missions professors but that their graduates are "both biblically qualified ​and​ are able to use their gifts in a foreign language and culture" - without any training in intercultural communication, or in understanding how other cultures operate, or in appreciating anything about how other workers have fared in previous generations, or in examining the state of churches in the nations to which they are sent. (This is an issue I have addressed frequently, such as here.)

Remmers' seems to have no appreciation of how culture-bound his view of cross-cultural ministry is. This lack of self-awareness is the chief weakness of the article and why I do not commend it.

The Southgate Fellowship

The Southgate Fellowship is a group of theologians, missiologists and reflective practitioners who are concerned at the state of missions in the contemporary evangelical world. A few days ago, the group, which has been meeting together over the past four years, launched a new web site.

Council members of The Southgate Fellowship are drawn from the USA, UK, and France. 

They belong to a number of denominations, but all are committed to Reformed theology; the Council is co-chaired by David Garner of Westminster Theological Seminary and Dan Strange of Oak Hill College, two heavyweight systematic theologians from Reformed institutions.

All council members take an active interest in cross-cultural ministry with a few having experience of work among Muslims. Some have ministry experience outside their homeland, though it is not clear that this includes substantial personal intercultural interaction.

I have met half of the council and was a supervisor of Bill Nikides’s uncompleted doctoral research. My review article of Dan Strange’s book on the subject is available here.

The council has been helped by a number of external advisors, though these are not named.

TSF has already been endorsed by dozens of well-known conservative evangelical leaders in church, seminary and mission, including Don Carson, Ligon Duncan, Kevin DeYoung, Michael Horton, Bill Edgar, Richard Pratt, Garry Williams, Paul Wells, Ray Porter, and Steve Smith, as well as lesser-known pastors and leaders in various other parts of the world.

You are given the opportunity to add your endorsement. I will not be doing this and will try over the next few blog posts to explain why.

For now, though, allow me to make some general comments.

It is the conviction of TSF that

due to a convergence of forces in contemporary theology and the global church, many in the study and practice of world mission have strayed methodologically from the sure foundation of Scripture; they functionally deny the categorical uniqueness of the Christian faith, and impose non-biblical and even anti-biblical interpretive grids upon people, religions, culture, and the work of mission.

The core project of the TSF, therefore, is a statement consisting of 100 pithy affirmations and denials that seek to outline where the points of contention are and provide a biblical critique. The statement is ordered in a systematic theological framework, is well presented and is easily accessible using the format of drop-down section headings.

For the most part, the statement is readable. But not always. In places it is even clunky:

79c) We deny that a younger church has no theological, financial or moral obligation to the sending church.

Why the double negative?

I understand that a statement of this nature needs to be terse. It is already long (nearly 10,000 words) but at times the degree of abstraction tends to opacity. For example, I am not really sure to what this is referring:

58b) We deny that in terms of redemptive history or for the sake of mission method, these last days offer direct parallel to or unqualified analogy to those prior to the coming of Christ.

That may be just my ignorance.

Proof reading missed out this incomplete sentence: 

Whilst individuals, groups and societies may see themselves as a-religious and describe themselves as such (whether atheistic, disinterested, secular or other).

These are minor concerns. Over the next few days I plan to engage with the statement in more significant ways.

Thinking Mission Symposium

I had the privilege to be at this gathering in London on Tuesday. It had been arranged by Global Connections to discuss Mike Stroope's important book, Transcending Mission, which I reviewed last year. In God's providence the author was already planning to be in the UK so Mike was able to attend. (In what follows I beg forgiveness if I misrepresent any of the contributors and will revise it if an error is pointed out.)

Mike gave an introductory paper, telling us a little of his ministry story as well as informing us of the thesis of the book and of the reactions it has received. I was fascinated to hear that he had had a significant part to play in the SBC International Missions Board's leadership in the 1990s, a story told by Keith Eitel in Paradigm Wars. I had been in Nepal at that time and had seen some of the fruit of the machinations in the organization that Eitel documents. (I asked Mike about it at the end of the day but didn't have enough time to really interact. Suffice it to say that those events had a significant impact on the development of my missiology so I do hope I can interact further before long.)

Mike spoke graciously and humbly, admitting that he had had some pretty strong negative reactions to his argument. That is to be understood as the book really calls much of the modern missions movement into question.

David Smith's Mission after Christendom was a tremendous help to me when I arrived back in the UK after 20 years in Asia. David was asked to prepare a response to Mike, which he did ably and winsomely. Sometimes there can be a hard spirit in such gatherings, where egos seem to count more than truth and the good of the church and the glory of Christ. Not so here. David expressed his admiration for the book, situating it in a line of very significant works such as Cragg's The Secular Experience of Christ, Bosch's Transforming Mission, and the work of Andrew Walls (David's mentor), and suggesting that Stroope's book extends the long-running disputes of those authors.

He then highlighted three issues that the book throws up:

1. The relationship between mission and colonialism

The modern missions movement had an ambivalent relationship with the colonial project. There was significant overlap without a doubt, though this is often overplayed. David then argued that Mike's book misses out on the very important role that missions had in the emergence of World Christianity and even of the revitalisation of cultures in places such as Africa.

Furthermore, Protestant mission movements were not monolithic. Many early pioneers, such as William Carey (1761-1834), were dissenting Baptists. Far from being at the centre of power, they were at the margins. Carey's approach towards Hinduism was respectful: hardly a colonialist attitude and very different from the high period of colonialism of a later generation.

2. The relationship of terminology and concepts of mission and the Bible

Stroope argues that mission, missions, missional, etc have become sacred rhetoric with no biblical foundation. Smith challenges this main assertion of the book in two ways:

a) How, if we cannot employ such a concept as mission, can we explain what Paul had in mind when he instructed the Roman church to support him in his vision to go to Spain, a challenge that would have necessitated a two-step process of translation to Latin and Iberian languages (Rom 15:23-24)? Paul was a model for what might be done by other disciples of Christ. How do we talk about that? What language should we use? Furthermore, Paul, as has been pointed out before, was reaching out from one marginal position to another, not from a position of power.

b) Is the 'pilgrim witness' language that Stroope argues for, the most appropriate? And what do we mean precisely by the 'kingdom of God'? [My notes are a bit incoherent here!] David questioned whether the missions movement was really subverting the kingdom of God, as seems to be suggested. There are clearly examples of unrighteous acts done by some missionaries (and here Smith mentioned the missionaries of one particular country, who are the subject of a PhD dissertation which he recently examined). But there are very many examples of good work going on too. Moreover, we need to note the emphasis on human agency that Carey asserted in his Enquiry, in the face of a hyper-Calvinistic challenge. 

3. The use of 'transcendence' - what might it look like?

Are we now moving beyond Bosch's liminal stage? Smith here mentioned Walls' recent Crossing Cultural Frontiers and his discussion of migration. Surely both persuasion and demonstration are important in the work of witnesses. Here David also referred to an article on 'Theological Method' in the Global Dictionary of Theology and Terry Eagleton's Culture and the Death of God.

Further interaction

Two shorter presentations were also given - by Rosalee Veloso Ewell, giving a female and global South perspective, and by a Redcliffe College student, Aaron, giving a Millenial perspective. Short opportunities for interaction were given after each presentation.

Mike Stroope gave a final reaction to the day in which he informed us he was working on a follow-up book expanding on the epilogue of Transcending Mission. 

My reaction

The audience gave a sympathetic and respectful hearing to the argument and responses. I found the day very stimulating indeed. I was heartened at the spirit of interaction, especially by the two main speakers. I think the concerns with the book that I expressed in my review were shared by others. Although I think Mike's thesis is basically correct, I continue to believe he overstates his case. I find it difficult to see how vast chunks of humanity will be exposed to the glorious person of the Lord Jesus without a more intentional approach.

One concept that seemed to have achieved virtual consensus in the papers and discussion is that of World Christianity. I whole-heartedly agree that we need to be learning from each other across the cultural and continental divides. However, there seems to be little or no awareness of the fact that there is a growing body of followers of Christ who do not identify themselves as belonging to World Christianity. We may listen to Christians in their countries and still be way off really understanding our other brothers and sisters. And we will remain just as handicapped in our efforts to reach out to the vast numbers who, while open to considering the person of Christ would find World Christianity far too alien.

On a personal level this book challenges me to reflect on my words, my actions, and my character, as I continue to seek to work out how the Lord would have me continue to use my gifts, experience, and energies for his glory.

Christ-Centred Hindu Community

Review of Disciple Making Among Hindus: Making Authentic Relationships Grow by Timothy Shultz (Pasadena: William Carey, 2016).

The title of this review will likely grate in the ears of many readers. ‘Christ-centred community’ you get; ‘Hindu community’ you also get. But ‘Christ-centred Hindu community’ sounds like an oxymoron, like heavy feathers or hot ice. Before you leave this page, judging it as the ravings of a weirdo, allow me to inform you that no less a man than the pioneering missionary to India William Carey talked about ‘Hindu Christians’. Timothy Shultz would not be comfortable with that terminology but not for the reasons you might expect.

Read the rest of this review here.

I have 6 copies of this book. To get your copy, send me a 'large letter' stamped addressed envelope (the book is 21.5 x 14cm) with £1.26 of stamps and a cheque for £10. Get my address and check I have stock first by emailing me (pickettmark62ATgmail.com) or tweeting me @drmarkpickett. UK only.

Are You a Zombie Missionary?

On the radio the other day there was a discussion about ‘zombie companies’, that is businesses that should have folded years ago but because of low interest rates they have been able to hang on by the skin of their teeth. And because the British economy is replete with such companies, productivity in the UK is much lower than it would otherwise be.

That got me thinking about some people that I have encountered in mission. The clear majority of cross-cultural gospel workers I have encountered and worked with are industrious, conscientious, and spiritual people. Now, I fear to induce anxiety in some who are already overly-anxious. But to be frank I wonder if it is time for some missionaries to wind up what they are doing and go home. Some people who have lived in their adopted country for a long time are filled with dread with the prospect of returning to their passport country. ‘What will I do?’ ‘Where will we live?’ ‘How will we survive in a society that is increasingly antagonistic to our values?’ Is that you? Maybe it is not really ‘going home’ anymore, since your host country has increasingly become your home. So, you cling on. Maybe you have a family and the children are happy where they have grown up.

And so, you stay. But as you stay the reasons for staying slowly morph. I have met people like this. One man was a secretary to his organisation’s regional director. He plodded along for two decades doing the same thing day after day. I was impressed with what I thought at first was his stickability. He had started as a single man but along the way he had married and now had three children in their teens. But rather than take on more responsibility with growing experience he still typed up letters and filed reports. In pure economic terms, each letter cost a fortune to produce because of the expenses his family demanded. And then there was his participation in team devotions and prayer meetings. Was a poor devotional life the cause of his low productivity or correlated in some other way? It became increasingly clear that his apparent stickability was in fact sheer inertia. In the end, the leadership in the organization did say his time was up. It was a sad and costly transition.

And then there was the mission school teacher, another worker who now had a family. The school was a great place for his own children to get an education—much better than it would be back home. And that seemed to be the main reason for his remaining ‘on the field’. I can sympathize with that. But one wonders if his supporters understood his motives. Wasn’t it time they had an honest discussion about their ministry?

So, what if you suspect you might be a zombie missionary? Take my advice:

1.     Reflect on your spiritual life. Do you love God more now than when you began this ministry? Are you spending time with your heavenly Father on a regular basis? Do you enjoy fellowship with his people? Does your heart ache for people who don’t know the Lord?

2.     Review your prayer letters critically. What is the tone of the letter? Does it edify your prayer partners even as it informs them? (And I am not talking about a Bible verse at the top; most of us skip those anyway!) Is it only about the family, the car, or the holiday? Does it suggest to your supporters that if you were not there, the work of the gospel would carry on just fine? Now, you must be careful here: you may not be good at writing letters; your work may demand patient long-term investment of time and effort before you see any tangible results; you may be encountering huge obstacles so that simply staying there is a cause for celebration. So, this is not a fool-proof test.

3.     Request someone you trust to give you a thorough review of your ministry. Choose someone who is looking out for your good but will not easily be fooled; someone who is loving and wise; someone with spiritual maturity. Encourage them to ask hard questions. This must include probing questions about your spiritual appetite.

What if you fail the test and you are a zombie missionary? Do yourself and everyone else a favour: grasp the nettle, go home, and get help. You need to seek the Lord to recover your lost love. You need help from a godly pastor or brother or sister in Christ who will help you get back on track spiritually. Returning to the ministry is not the main goal. Returning to the Lord is. You may never get to go back to the scene of your backsliding. But that is all right. It was too important to you anyway. As George Verwer says, “The issue is not geography; it is reality”. And be encouraged: the Lord wants to refresh you with his grace. "A bruised reed he will not break and a soldering wick he will not snuff out" (Isa 42:3).