Spiritual Profiling: Missionary Toolbox #8

According to leading strategy trainers within the International Mission Board of the SBC, one of the best ways to understand an unreached people group is by building a Spiritual Profile. This happens to be the final tool in the missionary toolbox for creating a people group profile. Here are some good questions to ask:

1. What is the predominant religion of your people? when did it start? how did it start?

2. What calendar events does this religion influence?

3. What are the life events celebrated through this religion? how?

4. Is religion a choice or coerced?

5. How does this religion view family? outsiders?

6. Who is in leadership within this religion? How did they get there?

7. How does this religion interact with Christianity? how many Christians are there?

8. What is the ration of Christian churches to the population?

9. Do the people have access to the Bible? gospel presentations in media? mission organizations?

10. Are the people oral learners or literate?

11. What has been the growth of evangelism within this people group in recent years? why?

Demographic Profiling: Missionary Toolbox Part 3

Last summer I gave an example of a narrative demographic profile when I interviewed our neighbors in Moscow and asked specific questions related to their world view. Those posts can be found here, here, here, and here. One really great tool in a missionary's toolbox is a demographic profile of his/her people group. Based on Dr. Bob Brown's* Profile (name changed for security purposes), the International Mission Board has long used specific questions to better understand a unreached people group (UPG) or even an unengaged unreached people group (UUPG) overseas. These same questions can be used anywhere, even in urban settings throughout North America:

1. Where is the UPG located?
2. What is their total population in within geographic boundaries? Are they concentrated in a country or is there also a diaspora?
3. Can you identify smaller homogenous segments within the UPG?
4. Are there any similarities between this UPG and another?
5. What do they look like physically?
6. What percentage live in urban centers? How rapidly are they moving into cities?
7. What is the birth & death rate?
8. How long do they normally live?
9. What is the leading cause of death?
10. How many attend school? How many are youth? Children?
11. Describe a college graduate job in this culture.
12. What is the published literacy rate? What is the real rate?
13. What is the culture's view of education?
14. Are they oral learners?
15. What are the leading written publications of this UPG?
16. What is the primary language in government institutions? Secondary?
17. What is their heart language? How many youth speak in the heart language?
18. What jokes or proverbs describe the people group?
19. What jokes of proverbs does the UPG use to describe outsiders?
20. How might this data above help you identify barriers or bridges to the culture? How might it affect the way a New Testament church is planted within this UPG?

ECMU's Church Planting Model for Urban Russia

Specifically in Russia the C&MA has partnered with ECMU to “cultivate an Evangelical missionary church movement in key cities and regions of Russia and among their under-reached peoples.”[1] C&MA believes four key initiatives based upon its four-fold gospel foundation will complete that task. By planting new churches in seven of Russia’s largest cities, C&MA hopes reach a significant population of Russia’s “least-well churched”[2] through meeting real human needs. This is an important feature for a workable urban church planting model.

            Meeting real human needs means establishing a missional presence in places where people congregate. Michael Frost sees this as reflective of healthy modern churches.

           

We are now seeing the emergence of churches that are meeting in houses, cafes, workplaces, dance clubs, nature parks, online, and other venues. Most of the emerging church we have been able to uncover are quite intentional about developing smaller communities and are attempting to fulfill the Great Commission by doing church planting rather than church growth. Not only is this more missionally responsive in the new context but, we believe, it is also much closer to New Testament ecclesiology and missions practice.[3]

In order for mission to happen in the way it desires, C&MA has established a needs-based community outreach aspect for each of its new churches. It believes this will work

to establish a credibility for the Evangelical church that is rooted in service. Therefore we are using need-meeting and interest-serving ministries such as family services, sexual abstinence presentations in schools, counseling for post-abortive women and for substance abuse, rehabilitation work with addicts, as well as sports camps, English language instruction, healthy living courses and handicraft hobbies.[4]

Each of the new church plants is instructed by missionaries to seek out ways to reach out to the community.

C&MA teaches that those churches are then responsible for sending out their own missionaries. A stated goal of ECMU is to “help key churches clear growth barriers and send out their own daughter-church planters.”[5] Although various church growth models are being individualized and crafted for each situation, one particular pattern being promoted for urban church planter support is a program of small-business development whereby the church planter and the church plant are self-supported from the first day.

Because theological education is important to leadership development in the local church, C&MA has also invested a significant amount of energy into crafting an ongoing instructional program at the Kuban Evangelical Christian University (KECU). As one of only two accredited Christian colleges in Russia, KECU hopes to train “the nation’s most progressive leaders in the emerging Evangelical missionary church movement.”[6] This, the C&MA hopes, will supply ongoing visionary leadership for a healthy church planting movement with sound urban ecclesiology.

---

[1] The Alliance Russia Field, “Four Key Initiatives.”

[2] The Alliance Russia Field, “Key City Church Planting,” (2007). http://www.cmainrussia.org/go/number1 (accessed August 1, 2009).

[3]Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the

21^st Century Church. Peabody, Mass.: Hindrickson and Erina, NSW, Australia: Strand, 2003.

[4] The Alliance Russia Field, “Creative Need-meeting and Interest-serving Outreach and Service,” (2007), http://www.cmainrussia.org/go/number2 (accessed August 1, 2009).

[5] The Alliance Russia Field, “Growing and Multiplying Churches Planted in the 1990s,” (2007), http://www.cmainrussia.org/go/number3 (accessed August 1, 2009).

[6] The Alliance Russia Field, “Raising Up a New Generation of Visionary Missionary Leaders in Russia,” (2007), http://www.cmainrussia.org/go/number4 (accessed August 1, 2009).

Review of CAMEL Method of Evangelizing Muslims

I was asked again just the other day about the CAMEL method for evangelizing Muslims. I tried to explain that the CAMEL method is a bridge, but just like any man-made bridge, it has some spots that might need repair. A bridge is useful to cross a barrier, but traffic flows both ways. The materials used to build that bridge will either stand the test of time or they will succumb to the elements. Therefore, it would behoove any bridge builder to give great care in how he builds such an instrument.

Kevin Greeson describes the bridge that the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention has tailored for work among Muslims in his book, The Camel – How Muslims are Coming to Faith in Christ. In this work, Greeson argues for the use of an old Muslim proverb and one particular Quranic text, Al-Imran 3:42–55. According to the book, there is much frequency in God granting supernatural and revelatory dreams about himself, but Greeson claims that God is using this conversational method more than any other means for bringing Muslims to Christ. This method opens the door for controversy as to how much credence a Christian can give an extra-biblical text, especially that of another world religion, to be utilized for evangelism. Questions of both Christology and biblical authority can be raised.

The CAMEL Method

Greeson claims that the CAMEL method is a mnemonic device for remembering the words chosen, announced, miracles, and eternal life when exegeting Al-Imran 3:42-55. It would be similar to using the Southern Baptist acronym for FAITH (forgiveness, available, impossible, turn, and heaven) in evangelism. In this passage from the Quran, Greeson claims that it is possible to find a message about Jesus Christ. Almost tongue in cheek, he also employs an old Islamic proverb about only a camel knowing the last of the hundred names of God. He insists that the Quranic passage speaks about Jesus (Isa) as holy, as born of a virgin, as victorious over death, and as having knowledge of the way to heaven. The book places a great deal of stock in the conversion results that have occurred from using this method. Greeson’s thesis is that this method which he learned from a Muslim-background believer (MBB) is best program for finding a man of peace among Muslims (p. 13). He insists that “reaching Muslims for Christ is not the ultimate goal” in this method (p. ii). Instead, the method is to be a useful tool for finding the man of peace.

            In his book, Greeson cites Paul’s message at the Areopagus as biblical proof that Christians should use non-Christian cultural texts in building a bridge for establishing communication that can turn toward evangelism. He claims that Paul quoted Greek poets as sources for what immediately communicated the gospel message and later became biblical text itself. He sees this biblical precedent as no different from a modern missionary or MBB using the Quran for expressing truths about Jesus Christ.

            Greeson claims that the CAMEL method is a mere bridge for sharing the gospel. He then takes great great pains in the opening chapter to reiterate that it is only a bridge and should not be a parking lot. Throughout the book he reveals that method itself is potentially dangerous if not abandoned early enough in the evangelistic conversation.

Observations and Criticisms

Although the book has some strong points about engaging Muslims with their own cultural texts and perhaps even disarming the traditional animosity by citing their holy scriptures, Greeson’s book reveal some areas for potential criticism. Greeson claims that the Quranic texts reveal truth about Jesus Christ that can be cited for a gospel presentation, but the question immediately arises as to what kind of Christology can be formulated from the texts of a non-Christian religion. This in turn raises questions as to the authority that can be granted to non-Christian texts as well as the possibility of syncretism.  Yet another question is the semantic nature of Christian terms.

Greeson admits openly that a Christian theology cannot be formed from a Quranic understanding of God. However, he toys with this premise by saying that these Quranic verses can be used to communicate truth about Jesus Christ. The very verses that are employed in the CAMEL method may communicate that the Islamic Isa is holy also may communicate that he is “one of those who are near to Allah” (vs. 45), thus contradicting the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. They also communicate that Isa was a man who was created (vs. 47) as opposed to being God himself. These verses, by implication, formulate a Christology that denies the divinity of Christ.    

            The dialogue used to converse with a man of peace might not be easily abandoned. The use of Quranic verses for finding a person of peace among Muslims might be akin to using the lyrics of Black Sabbath or AC/DC for finding a person of peace among head bangers. At some point the person of peace must come to understand that the very words used to attract him to an evangelistic conversation are in reality anti-Christian and therefore must be denied for his conversion. And yet the question remains as to whether the verses or lyrics used ever held any authority at all.

            Greeson seems to imply that the Quran, albeit having no authority for salvation, still is a source for salvific truth. When Greeson poses the question, “May I show what I have found about peace and salvation in the Koran?” (p. 48) he is in essence still granting some semblance of authority for finding God and salvation through that Islamic text. In yet another place, Greeson tells a story which posits that the Quran’s translation “into all the languages of the world” provides the means for which we can “know what God wants us to do and believe.” Although he quantifies his statement with a clarification as to truly understanding God through further means, his implication is that the Quran is still useful for being introduced to Jesus Christ. The question arises as to conversion through this conversation, namely at what point a convert, if ever, renounces his former religion.

            This problem is exacerbated by his instruction to “make some vocabulary changes” (p. 58). The word for God should be replaced with Allah, the generic name for a higher deity in the Muslim world. Jesus should be identified as the Isa of the Quran, and thus followers of Jesus would be called Isahi instead of the historical term Christian. In fact, Greeson admits that the term Christian carries a very negative and immoral connotation. The word church becomes jamat, and instead of having identification with the Christian churches of the western world, they are seen as specialized branches of Islam giving preference to following Isa. 

Missiological Considerations

These aforementioned observations carry some huge missiological implications. The question of biblical authority must be addressed at some point. Questions about Christiology and soteriology also must be clarified. Moreover, the issue of Christian identification is at stake.

Whatever tool employed to reach the lost becomes, by necessity, an instrument for ongoing discipleship. This has been seen historically in the western church as more and more elements of non-Christian culture have become staple forms for worship and entertainment among modern Christians. Extra-biblical texts and songs become forms of communication by which gospel truth as well as personal discipleship is passed on. Thus, any texts, lyrics, or speeches from extra-biblical sources are open media for communicating God’s truth, but they must be judged as to their ongoing value for growth in Christ.  

Is it possible to exegete the Book of Shadows from the Satanic Bible or other non-Christian texts to witness to a Satanist? The question is the basis for general verses special revelation. Are there other ways outside of the Christian Scriptures useful to make a person wise unto salvation? Are dreams, visions, and other non-biblical sources truly valuable for missiological purposes? Greeson seems to believe they are.

Albeit attractive, these same sources can produce a faulty Christology and a heretical soteriology. Greeson seems to indicate that these Isahi have truly left Islam and have identified themselves with Christ alone. It could be argued though that building a Christology on such extra-biblical parameters has in reality created a new sect, one that arguably is more syncretistic than biblical. The missiological test of any church planting is the openness to not only identifying with Christ himself but also the universal Christian church. Anything less would be unhealthy.

Greeson places a great emphasis on this bridge, perhaps too great an emphasis. He is to be commended in identifying this method as a possible means for which to initially relate to persons of peace. His book has value as it opens a dialogue for further discussion about the ways for communicating the gospel to Muslims. Missiologically, it is a pioneering work in that it opens the door for dialogue about the means for gospel communication using cultural texts in an unprecedented way.

            Unfortunately, there are theological grounds for rejecting the CAMEL method that Greeson fails to answer in his text. He also does not completely address the reaction of Muslims to his prooftexting of their sacred writings. It would be interesting to read a Muslim’s reaction to Greeson’s book. If Greeson’s purpose is to be simply descriptive of a possible method for reaching some Muslims through a nonbiblical text, the book has missiological warrant. However, it seems that he wrote the book to describe the method as normative and prescriptive, as a valid method to be indiscriminately employed. If this is the case, then at best the book is reckless.

Compare/Contrast Garrison & Sinclair

Due to my travel schedule, this post is a little later than I planned. But here is a comparison between two great missiological minds- David Garrison and Dan Sinclair.  Garrison and Sinclair agree on the basics of church planting as the primary vehicle for effective evangelization. Although they disagree on minor points, they both adhere to the primacy of the Word of God and the powerful impact of correct biblical teaching. As such, their differences are more in line with strengths and weaknesses in their respective approaches rather than polarized stances. For example, they both agree on a timely exit for any foreign catalytic influence, but they disagree with how much foreign support is necessary to initiate and maintain a grass-roots movement. However, these small dissimilarities only work to enhance their purpose in writing a book. The very fact that Sinclair disagrees with Garrison’s admonition of unpaid workers shows that Garrison’s didactic approach does not work. Garrison begins by presenting raw data, and then he moves to showing the frequency of certain data. If his data are considered one of his strengths, then Garrison’s argument is lost somehow on the incidental advocate of national support.

            Indeed, Garrison moves quickly from a descriptive list of observations to a prescriptive set of strategies. In contrast to Sinclair, Garrison’s prescriptive strategies somehow fall short of detail and practical tactics. Garrison does attempt to use Scripture at times to defend his conclusions, but he seems to depend more on his current data to support CPM theory. Moreover, the sheer volume of statistical data mixed with the lists of do’s and don’ts might make a potential church planter wary of making mistakes in starting the wrong kind of church.

            Garrison places a strong emphasis on the strategy coordinator as the prime mover in initiating a church planting movement, but Sinclair’s text speaks directly to church planters and missionaries. It is an admonition to join a team and begin the work. It seems to carry a hint of encouragement and possibility in missions. A great strength of the book, the practical details of how to construct certain documents to avoid mistakes and direct vision give the reader hope. Sinclair gives practical advice for missionaries throughout the work, both on macro levels such as directing movement through phases to micro levels of preparation in language and cultural acquisition.

            Sinclair uses Scripture as a rationale for his argument. This is not totally lacking in Garrison’s text, but Sinclair does not promote any extra-biblical support for his teaching. Instead, he defends his choice of biblical texts with personal examples of how it has or has not worked for his teams. Therefore, Sinclair’s text seems more personal, more like a testimonial statement than a persuasive speech. When Sinclair defines apostleship and church, his personal investment can be sensed. Sinclair deals with more practical issues like ecclesiology from a biblical perspective. Consequently, when he incorporates supplemental material like Scoggins’ phases for church planting, they are seen more as a communication model than a prescriptive plan.

            Sinclair does have his limitations as well, some of which may be self-imposed. He quite often presents illustrations from and admonitions to workers in Muslim contexts. Perhaps this is because of his own experience in those areas, but his singularity in attention to that milieu could isolate any reader not involved in missions work in those areas. He addresses this at points throughout the book, but this criticism is nonetheless justified.

            As mentioned earlier, his approach could be considered linear. He attempts to address this when he admits that work in Scoggins’ church planting phases often goes on simultaneously on several levels (p. 60). However, the very fact that even his book is structured in a linear fashion speaks to his preferences. Garrison would argue more for a nonlinear multi-tasking as an effective mode of initiating CPM.

            Sinclair also disagrees with Garrison’s conclusions regarding the desirable level of outside support for national workers. Whereas Garrison would advocate a nonpaid approach as the basis for rapid reproduction, Sinclair believes that being an unpaid worker “often means unable to be much involved in concerted expansion work” (p. 207). He explains that the economy of most Muslim countries lead to polar extremes of unemployment or overwork. In either case, this is not conducive to the expectation that a lay worker be bivocational. At any rate, Sinclair argues with Garrison only “reluctantly” (p. 210), because he does not see this issue as being the central point to CPM theory.

            Sinclair does call CPM theory into the negative spotlight for its insistence that churches are the catalysts for starting other churches. On the contrary, Sinclair admits that “key individual disciples are uniquely called, gifted, and effective in starting new fellowships” (p. 207). This is yet another example of how Garrisons text speaks to churches whereas Sinclair expects individual church planters for his audience.

            Sinclair also broaches some subjects that Garrison does not. For example, the issue of multiplicity of church elders does not appear in detail at all in Garrison’s text, but Sinclair spends an entire chapter discussing the biblical basis for this approach and the best way for the foreign church planter to choose and ordain elders. Garrison briefly highlights house or cell church models as normative in CPMs, but he cites examples of traditional church models for North American growth. On the contrary, Sinclair shows no clear preference for any particular model as more biblical than the rest. He does seem to express a level of comfort with the house church model based on his personal past experience, but he makes a clear statement that no one model is more spiritual than the others.

            Interestingly, both Garrison and Sinclair place specific assignments at the end of their texts. Garrison designed a checklist for churches to discover where their approach does not line up with his CPM theory and a plan for realignment. In the last of his appendices, Sinclair lists the top ten pitfalls teams make when planting churches. Both of these lists are subjective, of course. However, the unique thing about Garrison’s list is the corporate nature of realigning vision with practice. Sinclair’s list is more about realigned practice with mission. So perhaps the overarching theme is the role of the church and individual member in missions. Sinclair’s text should inform Garrison’s by its insistence that church planting is done by individuals, not just by churches.

Review of Dan Sinclair's Vision of the Possible

My next two posts will be a review of Dan Sinclair's approach to church planting, and since he interacts with David Garrison's CPM approach, tomorrow I'll observe how Sinclair and Garrison compare and contrast. Back in 2009, I posted on my blog an entry entitled, “Teaming101.”  In that post, I referenced Dan Sinclair’s A Vision of the Possible: Pioneer Church Planting in Teams and mentioned 10 good teaming questions from his book. I want to expand my observations about Sinclair’s book to include his philosophy and missiology, and let me say from the outset that I think every church planter or churches even considering the idea of planting another church should read this book.

             Dan Sinclair takes a direct approach to providing a guidebook for planting new churches with team methods in pioneer areas among unreached people groups. He carefully balances these three components, namely church planting, team, and the unreached, as key parts to his book’s thesis. Sinclair believes it is best to use teams to plant churches in pioneer areas. Although his book is written from the perspective of one having served in Muslim contexts, much of his information is transferable to non-pioneer fields as well. The book has fourteen chapters, each dealing with various aspects of church planting. Not creating an exhaustive list by any means, Sinclair has chosen the top issues that pioneer church planters confront when working on teams.

            He begins his discourse with a defense of the ongoing debate about the term apostle. According to Sinclair, apostleship has been a greatly “neglected subject” (p. 1). He believes an apostolic ministry is necessary for ongoing church planting. Therefore, he advocates that each church planting team have at least one team leader with some apostolic gifting (p. 11).

            He then moves into ecclesiology in chapter two. He defends the house church model as normative and promotes a plurality of elders for local church polity. His writing then turns from theory to practice with a discussion of the components necessary for a healthy church.

            As a supervisor of over 160 teams, Sinclair devotes chapters three and four to defining a rationale for the team approach and practical advice for maintaining a healthy effective team. He explains the importance of a Vision and Strategy Paper (VSP), which is a master plan or guide for the team’s strategic direction, and the Memo of Understanding (MOU) or team covenant. He advocates strong biblical leadership on the team but also defends a participative environment.

            Chapter five outlines the seven church planting phases developed by Dick Scoggins in Rhode Island as a useful communicative and evaluative tool. Phase I is pre-field training. Phase II is language and cultural acquisition. Phase III is personal evangelism. Phase IV is discipleship. Phase V is gathering. Phase VI is leadership development. Phase VII is reproduction. At first glance the phasing might seem like a linear approach, but Sinclair explains that “it is very common for ministry activities from various phases to be going on at the same time” (p. 60).

            He devotes chapter six to language acquisition. Interestingly, he advocates a language acquisition structure of two to three years committed to fulltime language study. Although he admits this might require adjustment in other scenarios, his “rule of thumb is thirty or more hours per week engaged in language activities for two years” (p. 102).

           Chapter seven is about platforms. Initially he deals with the ethics hurdle of doing covert missions operations, but he quickly moves into a definition of platforming. By deduction, it could be argued that both language acquisition and platforming make up phase II of the church planting phases.

            Sinclair says that “church planting is the main theme of this book” (p. 117). Accordingly, he defends personal evangelism as the central means to do so. He discusses evangelism methods that might work in resistant fields and recommends the “Discovery Course” for Muslim fields (p. 129). Although he is not in opposition to friendship evangelism, he nonetheless notes a demarcation between friendship evangelism and apostolic evangelism (p. 132). It is this apostolic evangelism that makes up phase III for church planting.

            Logically, Sinclair moves from evangelism to discipleship, phase IV in the phasing process. In chapter nine, he gives some very practical steps for hands-on discipleship. He also warns of potential pitfalls in a Muslim context.

            From discipleship he moves to phase V, leadership development that is characterized by servanthood. Team leaders are to be spiritually healthy, men or women of vision and faith, personally involved in church planting, able to listen to their team members, able to oversee individuals, and able to model accountability. Sinclair does a great job differentiating between essential and non-essential tasks of a team leader in this chapter. However, his shift in focus to the apostolic team itself is marked as he omits any mention of leadership development among nationals, perhaps what one would expect for phase V in church planting. Chapter eleven, nonetheless, does discuss the installation of elders and the timely withdrawal of foreign influence; so the shift in focus can be overlooked.

            Chapter twelve is Sinclair’s interaction with David Garrison’s statistics in Church Planting Movements. Click here for my review of Garrison’sbook. 

Sinclair adds supplemental information to Garrison’s materials in this chapter. Although much of the material overlaps, there are some dissimilarities in Sinclair’s own observations from four case studies in 2003. For example, he differs with one of Garrison’s conclusions regarding the financial support of national church leaders. Whereas Garrison promotes the POUCH approach marked by unpaid lay workers, Sinclair says this lack of financial support would make his church leaders “unable to be much involved in concerted expansion work” (p. 207).

            Sinclair defines the traditional, cell, and house church models in chapter thirteen, and then he lists some advantages and disadvantages for each. He denies that any one model is superior to the others, but he does hint at his preference for house church.

            His final chapter returns to the ecclesiological issue of multiple elder polity. In a question and answer format, Sinclair attempts to define the role of the church planter in elder installation and support. This chapter in conjunction with the epilogue places a premium on biblical teaching as the key element of church planting ministry.

Athletes in Action: Sports Missionary Method

No matter where I go, it's hard to find a place that hasn't been impacted by the missiological interaction between missions and sports. Athletes in Action (AIA) is a Great Commission Christian agency at work in Russia as well as in seventy-four other countries. Athletes in Action is an Ohio-based international missions arm of Campus Crusade for Christ (CRU) and was begun in 1966 by Dave Hannah. At work around the world, AIA uses sports as a medium for sharing the gospel sometimes in places where a traditional missionary is not allowed a public religious ministry. In 2008, AIA published Vision and Direction for the Future, an annual report from its trustees to its constituents and financial supporters. Another more brief document, the AIA Fact Sheet, highlights its strategic projects and events as well as its domestic and international ministry teams. Its board of trustees has a broad range of representatives from many aspects of Christian and secular business as well as many sports authorities. With a budget of almost $23 million and over two hundred thousand volunteers, AIA uses sports not just as an avenue for witnessing but also discipleship, taking the principles of Christianity and applying them to sportsmanship. As an arm of Campus Crusade for Christ, founded by Dr. Bill Bright in 1951, AIA clearly has the same evangelism philosophy for showing “people how to know and experience God’s love and plan for their lives” (AIA Fact Sheet, p. 2). Whereas Campus Crusade has a broad range of missions applications, most notably its international broadcasting of the Jesus Film, AIA is focused specifically on athletic venues for reaching a more targeted audience. My personal interaction with AIA began in 2000 when sports missionary John McIntosh helped Pennsylvania-based Push the Rock do a sports missions trip to Bryansk, Russia. We continued to work with AIA in St. Petersburg and Moscow as we hired two young women to serve as sports missionaries with our team. One of those, Jessica Lenderman, has continued her sports missions endeavors through the International Sports Federation.

             

The AIA Missionary Method

AIA’s missionary method revolves around “five focus areas” that it calls its “key measurements” (Vision, p. 2). Using evangelism, discipleship, staff growth, staff recruitment, and finances as the baselines for evaluating its performance, AIA builds a quantitative foundation for discussing its missionary method.

AIA utilizes a decision-based approach to gospel presentations and seeks to use sports events as both the drawing medium and the opportune moment for establishing contact with unsaved athletes and young sports enthusiasts. After initial contact is established through the universal language of sports, a gospel presentation is translated and materials such as sports-oriented Bibles and other Christian literature are freely distributed. Because initial contact is usually brief and nonrepetitive, there is a strong draw for immediate decision-based conversion through a prayer of commitment. For follow-up, the new believers complete a commitment card that is then passed on to either residential AIA representatives or local church partners. For deeper discipleship with its athletes, AIA workers establish regular contact for bible study. Local websites are also maintained for ongoing follow-up.

            In essence, AIA defines its goals each year in terms of how many witnessing opportunities its representative had, how many first time decisions were made for Christ, how many athletes were involved in local chapters of AIA, and how many people AIA maintained on staff. In 2008, 914 staff were able to present the gospel to “over 85 million people in 75 countries around the world” (Vision, p. 1). AIA recorded over seven thousand first-time decisions for Christ and attracted almost three thousand athletes into AIA discipleship programs. The agency  was able to establish a presence on 125 college campuses and among “35 professional sports teams” (Vision, p. 7).

            AIA is a missions agency, albeit not necessarily in the traditional sense. It is an international agency designed to reach other cultures and people groups through the use of nontraditional and “universal” language, the language of sports (Vision, p. 1). The Vision and Direction for the Future document contains five testimonials from 2008 as to how AIA met its strategic missional goals in Poland, China, Holland, Canada, Nicaragua, Israel and America. According to a second strategy document entitled AIA Fact Sheet, AIA was involved also in some other key missional events like a Super-bowl breakfast, an All-Star Celebrity Golf Classic Breakfast, and some international ministry events in eighty-five countries around the world. In the fact sheet, AIA states that its goal is “to use the unique platform of sport to help people around the world with questions of faith” (Fact Sheet, p. 1).

            According to these two documents, AIA sees its missionary activity as primarily evangelism and discipleship. Local church planting or church growth does not play into AIA’s strategy, but as a branch of Campus Crusade for Christ, AIA sees itself as a parachurch organization in support of the larger activity of the universal church. AIA does not seek to train local church leadership in any way other than to perform specific tasks related to its own sports activities. It also does not employ church polity in its direction or performance, but it does partner with local evangelical church leaders for ongoing projects in targeted locations. AIA seeks to embody the fuller essence of being parachurch while at the same time maintaining its own autonomy from any local church.

Missiological Implications

The missiological implications for AIA’s method are tremendous. Because it is a decision-based approach for conversion, it represents a western rational model for evangelism. As such, AIA may have to work to overcome some cultural barriers within eastern settings where individual decision is not as highly valued as group thinking. The application of Christianity to specific western cultural behaviors as evidenced in sports is their method for discipleship. One disciple admitted that “competing hard is okay” after he learned that it was a tenet of Christianity (Vision, p. 3). This too is a cultural difference in countries where competition is seen as a negative trait, much less a Christian one.

It is project based designed to reach large masses with evangelism but target specific groups for discipleship. For example, in one event in Nicaragua an AIA mission team “spoke to 1000 people, with an estimated 100,000 more potential viewers” in a television broadcast (Vision, p. 3). It maximizes short-term trips rather than establishing long-term incarnational presence. Usually these trips are one week long.

It uses internationally recognized avenues such as the Olympics as platforms for sharing the gospel. These large-scale events are often nationally recognized and therefore hold greater potential than any one church’s missionary activities. Moreover, this stance contradicts the church planting movement mentality behind some of the more recent evangelical missions agencies’ work to maintain outside foreign influence at a lower profile.

Like many other American ministries, AIA’s strategy is numerically-based and results-driven. Therefore, careful attention is required for reporting witnessing opportunities, decisions made, and disciples gathered. However, it does not record baptisms or church plants as these are activities of a local church. When AIA presents itself not as a missional arm of the church but as a parachurch missional agency, it stays true to its primary task as an external pioneering presence.

AIA is support-based through business. It is not a tent-makers’ ministry. Many involved in AIA’s international missionary service support themselves or either find their support from independent businesses, but no outright solicitation is made from local churches.

It is talent-based leadership equipping. It is cutting edge in that sportsmen can see themselves as missionaries. There was a time when missionaries would not have thought of sports as a gospel medium, let alone as a platform for ministry, but AIA is proving successful in changing the paradigm of traditional missions within this venue.

It opens doors in locations where traditional missionaries might not be able to go. This leads to a discussion of the target not as geographic or ethnic but cultural or subcultural, with the specific affinity being sports. Whether or not interest-based affinity grouping can be considered part of a biblical missiology is a question that missiologists have only begun to ask recently.

That is why there is a question of indigeneity. AIA does not address any cross-cultural training or language acquisition for these one-week trips. There is no specific cultural training outside of intensive preparation for survival as an expat in a foreign field. Therefore, the long term impact of these short term trips can truly only be measured with the evangelism results that AIA has set in place. A trip is designed to produce converts to Christ and volunteers to the sports projects.

            Sports is a medium for evangelism, like teaching English as a Second Language, drama presentations, or humanitarian aid. It is a language for reaching those that the local church might not reach otherwise. AIA is standing in the gap as an independent missions arm to garner those who only speak “sports”. AIA’s strategy is make that medium a missionary tool is both unique and successful.

Review of Tucker's From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya

Ruth Tucker published From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya: A Biographical History of Christian Missions to chronicle missions activity, but it also chronicles cultural conflicts. Tucker’s book is a missions survey from the time of Paul through the 1970s. Most interesting is the cultural phenomenon that ensued during the 20^th century as a changing America became the prime missionary sender. Issues like women’s rights and the waning primacy of evangelism in mission work became controversial, but they spilled over onto the mission fields. Because it is clear that these cultural issues of the sender affected the field during the 20^th century, there is a question as to how much cultural issues of the 21^st century will affect missions today.  

Single Women in Missions

Gender discrimination in the late 19^th century was met with some missionary activism, notably by Lottie Moon. Although some missions groups created entire “female agencies” (p. 232), the Foreign Mission Board had to contend with an independent streak in Miss Moon that caused a significant amount of contention with supervisor T. P. Crawford. Outspoken on women’s rights and equality, Miss Moon wrote forcibly in her letters about the needs for single women to be treated on the same level as ordained men.

            Her plight raised the question as to the effectiveness of a single woman on the mission field. There are some advantages to being free from family responsibility. But loneliness and depression often overtake singles. We don’t know whether Moon ordained men to be pastors, but she did start churches. This is not necessarily acceptable in all cultures, so the role of a single woman serving under authority raises the question as to just how much can be accomplished without the presence of a man. Regardless of her poor interpersonal relationships on the mission field and aversion to mission authority, Lottie Moon was successful later in her mobilizing more women to go to the mission field. Working out a theology of missions based on Scripture demands some restrictions to be placed upon certain activities of women in church planting still today.  

Evangelism Replacement in Missions

The story of John Mott and his insistence on the primacy of evangelism in missions became a sore spot for the work of the Student Volunteer Movement (SVM). If missions’ “aim should not be conversion” (p. 273), then social ministry, anthropology or ecumenism replaces the unique claims of the gospel and thereby invalidates missions. But this liberal element that affected SVM during the early 20^th century bled over into the mission field, and many missions efforts began to be defined by their benevolent work or student activity rather than by souls saved or churches planted. Unfortunately, there are still elements of this displacement today as missionaries question the validity of missiometrical reports on annual salvations and baptisms. Tucker inadvertently raises the issue of what constitutes real mission work if there is no gospel shared.

Nationalization in Missions

Yet another missiological issue that Tucker raises is the growing trend of nationalization among those who are being saved. MacGavran and Winter were key players in the late 20^th century in the indigeneity debate. America began to transition from a colonialistic model of missions to more contextualized and indigenous work. Although this has been a welcomed change, it raises crucial questions regarding what elements the indigenous cultures will now throw into their own theologizing and missions endeavors. More missionaries are now embarking from what was once considered mission fields themselves, and they will be taking with them their own culturally controversial ingredients.

Conclusion

A major contribution of this book to missiology is not just the historical mini-biographies but the lessons that each teaches for future work. Issues like women's rights and the minimalization of verbal evangelism blush at the mention of some more recent cultural controversies of the western church. As the sending of missionaries is shifting from the West to other cultures, these new senders should become aware of and learn from the mistakes of the American past century. Hopefully, some errors can be avoided in doing so. 

"Waste of Time": A Question about the CM approach to Evangelism

George Patterson and Richard Scoggins compiled their Church Multiplication Guide: The Miracle of Church Reproduction (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2002) to present reproductive church planting as the normative activity of a healthy church. You can download a .pdf copy here. The way they present evangelism in that guide can help you understand a missionary method that might be typical of those who would identify with the "Church Multiplication Movement" or "Church Planting Movement". That is not to say that all CMM or CPM proponents hold to all of these tenets, but Patterson and Scoggins exhibit commonalities among most.

            At first glance it would seem that this is an instructional book about starting and maintaining a church planting movement. On a deeper level, though, Patterson and Scoggins structure their material in a two-part format that provides insights into their ecclesiological stance. The first part is a catechism for immediate obedience to Christ that includes basic discipleship and sound theological teaching. The second part presents church reproduction from the perspective of nine different key players within the church multiplication movement. The manner in which Patterson and Scoggins relate their training has some strong points as well as potential weaknesses.

            Patterson and Scoggins present an evangelism approach that is based on missiology within homogenous groups, a strong emphasis on ecclesiastical authority of the local church, a soteriology that is hallmarked by immediate baptism, and a view of predestination that leans somewhat toward hyper-Calvinism. They propose that any culture best reaches out to a congruent culture, so a church planter should be matched with a target population having cultural similarities (p. 123). According to the authors, this is not meant to be a condemnation of cross-cultural apostolic ministry, but it is a pragmatic evaluation of the ease to which homogeneous groups relate. It is a missiological approach based on responsiveness. This speaks to Patterson’s and Scoggins’ heavy reliance on numerical results as an indication of God’s blessing. The authors focus their attention specifically on neglected fields and advocate a mainline thrust into the working class segment of a people group. They believe this is best done by eliminating any incongruence between the target population and the church planter. Whereas this is supported by the authors’ appeal to numbers (see other posts on missiometrics), it could be argued that their approach has a more numerical than biblical basis and contradicts the cross-cultural thrust in the missionary journeys of the apostle Paul.  

The authors perceive evangelism as a local church activity, not a parachurch activity. Specifically, Patterson and Scoggins list evangelism as one of the primary activities of a healthy local church. They say that “evangelists working independently from the church contribute little to church planting and may cause damaging confusion in a pioneer field” (p. 110). Their adherence to the ecclesiastical authority of the local church even in evangelism is praiseworthy, but it might also be seen as restrictive and reductionistic. The local church is the initiator for evangelism, but to eliminate independent evangelists could also be nonbiblical and counterproductive to the authors’ appeal to apostolic ministry. At one point, the authors suggest that evangelism can be initiated through persons of peace who might witness to others even before they have accepted Christ themselves. In this case, there is already a disconnect between the local church and the convert, wouldn't you say?

When discussing evangelism they briefly bring an indictment against emotional pleas for individual conversion (p. 104). Although Patterson had previously employed this “decision making ritual” (p. 104) in Honduras, he now advocates a much more retentive process of baptism-based conversion. The authors reiterate their dependency on metrics when they suggest that “a harvesting method that produces 95% weed seed yields too few true converts to maintain church multiplication” (p. 104). However, this is also a controversial stance. Group or family conversion as opposed to individual intellectual assent seems to also be defined by certain cultural standards. Their objection to western overemphasis of individual decision is well noted, but here again they appear to swing the pendulum to an opposite extreme rather than a happy medium.

            Due to some of his statements in this work, Patterson appears to be a staunch Calvinist and potentially adheres to double predestination. He says, “Unfortunately some missionaries waste years on people whom God has not chosen for salvation [emphasis added], neglecting others close by whom God has prepared” (p. 125). It seems that the determining factor for knowing God’s election is the measure of immediate responsiveness. This is why Patterson and Scoggins seek out a responsive subculture within the host society. They believe that “economic differences will define this subculture as much as racial” (p. 133). If the plumb line of evangelism is simply response to the gospel, it could lead to some current sowing fields becoming the neglected fields of the future. Patterson thinks that “on most neglected fields, this means that you must carefully search for those who will respond and not waste your time with the others” (p. 125). Consequently, the authors’ exhortation to seek out immediate response is also an admonition to ignore delayed response.

Review of Justin Martyr's First Apology (How It Relates to Missions)

Justin (Martyr). The First Apology of Justin. Cited in Roberts, Alexander, James

Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin

Martyr and Irenaeus.Vol. 1 of Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers

Down to A.D. 325. New York: Cosimo, 2007.

At first glance an apologetic book (a treatise of defense of Christianity) would not be a missions book, but Justin’s Apology gives a glimpse into a historical time period of Christian persecution as well as has serious implications for Christian missions. Justin’s book is a defense against the injustice that Christians are experiencing at that time, largely due to their association with the name Christian. Therefore, it is a call for Antoninus to stop these persecutions.

Christians are being unjustly condemned and even charged with atheism and treason, the equivalent of modern date hate speech. Justin, however, points out that Christians above all are good moral people and that all of the elements of Christianity are widely accepted in other forms of cultural mythology. Justin says that Christian beliefs are to be found even in heathen religions; however, the clearer form of those beliefs is evidenced in Christianity. As propaganda circulated in the first century AD about Christians as being cannibals and committing incest, Justin also has to counter those accusations. Justin’s apologetic work raises several cross-cultural issues that relate to missions today.

            First, Justin’s claim that Christians demand a higher moral standard than most is at question in modern missiological circles. His claim is based on the evidence of morality prevalent in the lives of those who adhere to the faith. From a modern western perspective, Christian missions has to constantly readdress the issue of morality. The role missions plays in seeking out justice for the oppressed, liberating those in chains, and demanding a moral standard for society has been infused into the cultural mandate. Justin, it seems, would have had no problem with addressing these modern issues.

            Second, his interaction with a pluralistic or even polytheistic society is still representative of the missions endeavors of some Christian workers today. Justin plainly labeled these indigenous gods as “demons” (p. 164). He frankly commented that “in obedience to Him, we not only deny that they who did such things as these are gods, but assert that they are wicked and impious demons, whose actions will not bear comparison with those even of men desirous of virtue” (p. 164). This brings to light our modern missionary methods of pluralist interaction and interfaith dialogue. Perhaps we have become too uncomfortable in naming false gods and demonic spirits at ecumenical tables. Justin clearly would not have been shy about that.

            Third, the missions mandate of Christians is evidenced in his statement that not only proper legal defense but Christian duty demands verbal witness. For Justin, “it is our task, therefore, to afford to all an opportunity of inspecting our life and teachings, lest, on account of those who are accustomed to be ignorant of our affairs, we should incur the penalty due to them for mental blindness” (p. 163). He believed that missions should occur naturally as an outgrowth of the Christian life. Failure to be intentionally missional is to participate in the spread of ignorance about Christ and his followers.

            Perhaps Justin’s apologetic work has more to say to us in the area of contextualization than it may seem at first glance. The church’s mission is more than a historical activity of spreading the gospel. In a much larger way, missions should involve the outworking of the gospel in every aspect of Christian life. 

Review of Michael Green's Evangelism in the Early Church

Green, Michael. Evangelism in the Early Church. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Can be ordered from Amazon here

Michael Green’s book makes some good implications for missionary praxis today. By looking at the history of Green’s analysis of evangelism in its first two hundred years after Pentecost, missiologists can draw comparisons between the background of the first two centuries and the modern situation. Because Green’s book is not an attempt to “give a comprehensive account of the mission of the Church in the broad sense” (p. 8), comparisons are limited to those issues related to practical evangelism.

            Green begins his book with a highlight of the 1990s as a decade that should have been a golden time of evangelism. However, he shows how the existentialism of the mid-twentieth century led to post-modernism and deconstructionism with their emphases on evangelism as a personal process for discovering God and a high value on relationships. This is somewhat like the background he describes for the first two centuries in Rome. If there is complexity in spreading the gospel in modern society, there is encouragement in looking at the obstacles faced by the Jewish and Graeco-Roman cultures. Green believes that although the strategies and tactics of early Christians were not “particularly remarkable, what was remarkable was their conviction, their passion and their determination to act as Christ’s embassy to a rebel world, whatever the consequences” (p. 23). Green posits that these characteristics should be the foundation for our present day evangelism efforts as well.

He emphasizes the three elements that allowed a pathway for facilitating the gospel in the first century. The Pax Romana gave an open door for easy movement throughout the Roman Empire. Greek Culture, expressed in a widely disseminated language, gave a structure to presenting the gospel within a single world-view. Judaism had a political appeal with the Roman society that gave the first evangelists a positive footing for sharing the gospel. As modern missiologists, we could say that the early Church contextualized its message for the Graeco-Roman listeners, but it is very clear that they utilized what was available to facilitate the spread of the gospel.

He also outlines the obstacles faced by evangelists. The early Church’s Christology as presented by untrained “nobodies” (p. 51) was a problem to Jewish scholars. The ecclesiology that empowered a local congregation also led to a split between the church and the synagogue. Roman culture also proved to be antagonistic to the private superstitio advocated by these new Christians, and Romans took offense at the Church’s reluctance to worship with the Imperial cult. Intellectuals objected to the wisdom of the cross, and social elites discriminated against the culturally inferior Christians. Truly, evangelism involved “social odium, political danger, the charge of treachery to the gods and the state, the insinuation of horrible crimes and calculated opposition from a combination of sources more powerful, perhaps, than at any time since” (p. 75). Yet, insight into their longsuffering under religious persecution is still apropos for many Christians worldwide today.

According to biblical prophecy, missionary practitioners must help the church face another wave of coming persecution. Of utmost importance is teaching young Christians how to stand under persecution in such a way that the message of the gospel still goes forward. Missionaries must constantly study the backdrop of his target culture to see what pathways exist for facilitating the gospel. And missionaries should help new church plants have a biblical foundation for understanding the primacy of Christ and how a true church behaves. Christology and ecclesiology may have taken some hits in the past, but missions will be impacted directly by a proper theology of Christ and His church.