Lesson 4: Discipleship, Equipping and Training

The theme of the January 2014 issue of Evangelical Missions Quarterly (EMQ) emphasizes the importance of training, equipping, discipling (you choose your term) of nationals.  It’s a theme that most cross-cultural workers are keenly aware.  Even when I was living in Kenya thirty years ago, I understood that planting a church (evangelism, preaching) is only one step in the process of our Lord’s commission, and equally important was the admonishment to baptize and teach the new converts “all things which I have commanded you (Matthew 28:20).  Why is discipling so important? 

First, because in many places of the world the church is truly “a mile wide and an inch deep.”  Statistically most of the Christians in the world now live in what is described as the “majority south” (Africa and Latin America).  In terms of sheer numbers this is encouraging as it is a testimony of God’s blessings on the work of early pioneer missionaries.  The faithfulness of those men and women who forged into areas of the then unknown world to take the Gospel is now revealed in a harvest of people who claim to be followers of Christ.  However, perhaps a weakness of those early missionaries, and what is being repeated in today’s missionary effort, is the lack of discipleship and especially pastoral, theological, biblical training.

I have visited and worked in ten African countries.  In some places where the Gospel has been well received a vast number of Christians know little about the Scriptures.  Africans are emotional and expressive and it is reflected throughout their culture, including the church.  While the music and dance is colorful and entertaining, it is possible to sit through a two-hour service without hearing God’s Word read one time.  A church that is mile wide and inch deep results in false doctrine, heresy and one wonders if they truly know Christ as their Lord.  Discipling must be coupled with evangelism.

Second, because historically the mission effort has been on evangelism and not equipping the saints for the ministry (Ephesians 4:12), there is a gaping hole in national leadership.  As was cited in EMQ, one of the largest evangelical denominations in Ethiopia, seven million members with eight thousand congregations, report only seven percent of the pastors in those churches have had any theological training at all.  The evidence of why biblical training is important can be ratified by such statistics. 

What can the church do about this need for training/discipleship national leaders?  First, we need more teachers to go to the field.  The Western church needs to put a priority on equipping the saints.  Second, churches in America can help in discipling by supporting national seminaries and colleges.   

As your missions team assembles to map out your local church world outreach, pay attention to those who are going out with a focus on “teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded you.”

Define Your Purpose: The Third Lesson in Creating a Missions Program

After you have assembled your team for missions, the first item on the docket to discuss is the fundamental questions, what are we trying to accomplish in missions?  In my classes I routinely remind my students “hazy goals will produce, at best, hazy results.”  If missionaries surrender their lives to overseas service they should at least have a plan for where they are going, what people group they are going to serve and what ministry they will be involved in that process.  If this is true for missionaries going, it certainly should be true for sending churches as well.  So, what’s the plan?

Here are three things to consider when creating a mission policy or guidelines.

1.     What type of work do we want to support?

2.     Who do want we want to focus on in terms of mission outreach?

3.     Who are the best people to help us reach out world outreach goals?

Mission Work

There are about as many mission activities as there are missionaries on the field.  Most of them are worthy of support.  Unfortunately no church can be involved in every mission ministry so it is important to choose what type of ministry is most important and focus on those programs.  I would suggest that you limit your support to two, possibly three, projects.

Church Planting – The heart of Christianity is the local assembly of believers.  Our Lord’s Great Commission was for His followers to go into the entire world, present the good news of His salvation, baptize those who choose to follow Him and then disciple those new believers in God’s Word.  There is no other singular important ministry that is more vital than establishing local congregations.  Of all the ministries your mission committee will consider the one question that should be asked is, “how does this ministry contribute to the establishing of the church?” 

Evangelistic ministries are worthwhile but evangelism does not plant churches.  It’s been said that you can do evangelism and not plant a church, but you can’t plant a church without evangelism.  Too many evangelistic programs are stand-alone programs.  The printings of tracks, radio or television programs and open-air evangelistic meetings are most effective when they are tied to the church planting process. 

Discipleship programs within themselves are not church planting projects.  Orphanages, rescue shelters, feeding programs, youth camps, seminaries and countless numbers of other ministry programs (which I will address later), though helpful, are not church planting programs.  As a missions team, you should always have at the forefront of your thinking, “how does this ministry aid in the establishing of a church?”

Types Of Church Planters

Pioneer Church Planters – A pioneer church planter is one who goes to a defined location and a people where there are few or no churches.  That was my job description when we moved to Kenya in 1976.  After language school I worked among two tribal groups called the Pokot and Turkana.  Both of these tribal groups lived in remote semi-desert regions of the northwest, bordering near Uganda and South Sudan.  The roads were often impassible, not easily accessible.  As a result of their remoteness there were few churches among the people and very few missionaries working among them.  For fourteen years I went to the towns and villages and established twelve congregations through witness, evangelism and discipling.

Two hundred years ago most Western missionaries did pioneer work, but that is no longer the case today.  Most Western missionaries are involved in other types of ministry, but there are still a few that do pioneer church planting. 

Facilitative Church Planters -  The reason there are fewer American pioneer church planters is because in many places of the world it is the national missionaries and pastors who are engaged in pioneer outreach.  There are, however, Western missionaries who come alongside the national church and help facilitate pioneer church planting efforts.  The FCP missionaries teach, disciple and promote the work of national church planting. 

After leaving Kenya as a resident pioneer missionary, I became a non-resident facilitative church planter.  There are several seasoned veteran missionaries with experience and expertise, like myself, who now train nationals in how to plant churches.  In my case, because I have worked in over 50 countries, I bring a perspective in training that comes with age.

It should be noted that not all discipling ministries are FCP.  Many short-term ministries from North Americans today are engaged in teaching marriage seminars, teaching a Bible course in a college or a two week children’s programs.  Much of those programs is taught from a mono-cultural Western perspective that is not contextual, and therefore could not be classified as FCP activity.

To recap, the role of a church planter is one who establishes or helps establish a congregation.  A pure church planting missionary, be they Western or national, does not pastor a church for an extended period of time, their focus in multiplying congregations, not a single assembly.  Like the Apostle Paul, a pioneer church planter is always on the move, with a focus of establishing another church in the next town or region.

As we will see later, other ministries can and should point to establishing a church.  

Part One in Developing a Missions Program: Create a Team

There are two common approaches to determining the mission program of the local church.  The first is pastor led.  In many congregations the pastor determines which missionaries will be invited to be a part of a mission conference or speak before the congregation.  In some cases, the pastor has the authority to take on missionaries for support or pledge money to a project without the congregation voting on such projects.  The second approach is through committees.  Committees are important, but many times committees can be cumbersome and time consuming. 

I personally do not have a problem with either approach as long as the pastor or the committee know the issues of missions and its complexity.  I will no doubt say this many times in the course of this series, but missions is for the most part an emotional exercise and that is unfortunate.  For a mission program to be successful the emotion of ministry (serving the poor, or having a warm feeling for a family of six going to Congo), must be eliminated. 

Because “committee” has a negative connotation in some quarters, I suggest that the local body create a team, which is a trend concept that fits well in today’s twenty-first century vocabulary.

The reason to create a team on missions for the local church is, first, it fosters inclusion and a sense of belonging into the life of the church.  Not everyone has the talent or ability to teach a class or be a part of the worship team.  However, they want to serve Christ and being a part of a world outreach program gives them a sense of belonging.  Second, group decisions give balance to any project.  If the decisions of world evangelism are just in the hands of the senior staff it may not have a balanced approach.  Third, if the rest of the body is aware there is a missions team that is giving direction in the congregation, theoretically, they will have more confidence that missions is not just another program that the church is doing.

WHO SHOULD BE ON THE MISSION TEAM?

First, they should be people who are active participants of the congregation.  By that I mean they attend regularly and support their congregation financially. 

Second, they should be interested in global outreach.  Between ten and fifteen percent of people in any congregation, including liberal non-evangelical churches, are interested in missions in one form or another.  We can safely say that there is the same percentage of people in any congregation that are not interested nor engaged in missions of any kind.  Obviously the first place to look for a mission team would be people who are already interested global outreach.

The makeup of the missions team should be a combination of older and younger people, male and female.  I don’t think it’s imperative that the senior pastor is a part of the team, but I also know that if the pastor or senior leadership of the church is disinterested in missions it will be very difficult for the program to advance in an effective way.  One mission policy I am aware of state that at least one person in the leadership, be they a deacon or elder, be on the mission team.

Start off by announcing to the congregation that a missions team is being formed and all those who are interested meet.  If there are people in the church that is known to be interested in missions, they should be encouraged to attend the meeting.  At the first gathering you might prepare a questionnaire for those in attendance as a guide.  Here is a sample questionnaire.

1.     Have you ever served on a missions team/committee before?  Yes – No

2.     Do you presently support missions either through the church or outside of the local congregation?  Yes – No

3.     What type of missions are you most interested in?  (a) local missions (b) foreign missions (c) Bible translation (d) church planting (d) social action – orphanages, feeding program etc. (e) Other (explain) ________________________

4.     Would you be willing to take a course in missions provided by the church to be a part of this team?

5.     Name one part of the world or people group that most interest you?

This is the beginning, step one in creating a good mission program for your church.  We will visit the purpose of the team in the next post.

Global Missions in the Local Church

Missions For The Local Church: Introduction

Recently I visited one of our supporting churches.  It’s a well-established and growing congregation.  The pastor asked me a question that is not uncommon, in fact, almost everywhere I go in the U.S. I am asked the same question – “How can we make our congregation more mission minded?” 

The majority of North American evangelical churches do missions.  By that I mean they have a missions program, like they would have a program for youth, children or seniors.  Missions is important in the sense that they believe it is a part of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20).  Many churches would never think about abolishing their mission program but, unlike youth, children or seniors ministry, missions does not support the “bottom line,” i.e., church attendance or budget.  In fact, missions and missionaries are usually seen as a liability to the growth of the church.  Missions is not a program that will help pave the parking lot or renovate the nursery.  Missionaries neither tithe nor teach a class.  For the skeptic, missions is a drain on resources.  This is never said overtly, but is manifested in benign neglect. 

However, because missions truly is important, pastors desire to go beyond just doing missions and instead want to do missions right.  It is because of this felt need I write this series on creating an effective global missions program for your local church.

At the outset let me state clearly that in creating a good missions program for your congregation is a process.  Like every program of the church, developing a missions program requires one major thing…a commitment to its development.  As you will see in this series, there are no five easy steps or one model to hold up as the example for all to emulate.  As with many things in life, doing things well takes time and effort.  If a pastor or church leader is not committed to the process then the chances are that two years from now your global outreach will be as dull as it is today, the result being a uninspired congregation for God’s heart, taking the Good News of Christ and His salvation to the ends of the earth.

So what is the process for creating a good missions program for your local church?  Here is the outline for upcoming posts.

1.     Create a missions team.  Who are they, why they exist, what is their job?

2.     Define your purpose.  How does your church and missions team define what is missions; church planting, social work, short-term, harvest versus seeding sowing ministries?

3.     Mission awareness.  How can your team and congregation become savvy in understanding missions today?  Where are the resources to help you become an educated body of world Christians?

4.     Evaluation.  After you complete steps one to three, its time to create a guiding missions document or policy.  Analyze your present global outreach and work toward the goal of becoming a Great Commission church.

You will notice that this outline does not discuss finances, and for a very good reason.  If missions is done well and has a designed purpose the funding of mission projects will take place.  I will make the case later that churches that do missions well seldom suffer financial hardship for their local ministries.

As we go through this series, please send your comments and questions along the way.

Mandela: Personal and Historical Perspective

The events of Nelson Mandela’s death and burial this week conjure up a personal historical perspective.  In the late ‘70’s and throughout the ‘80’s I lived in Kenya.  Still in the grips of the Cold War, the U.S. and their allies were forever pitted against the Soviet Union and their agents.   The West was against the African National Congress (ANC), not so much for their desire to be free but their allegiance to the ongoing global tussle between the political superpowers and the ideologies they supported.  Nelson Mandela was imprisoned because of his actions as, depending on your perspective, a terrorist or a freedom fighter.  It’s pretty easy to see history 40 years after the fact, but not so clearly in the midst of the struggle.

My wife and I boarded a plane for Johannesburg in 1980 to visit friends working in South Africa.  We were granted a visa, but asked the embassy not to stamp our visa in our passports.  Having a South African visa stamped in your passport during the days of apartheid was very much like having a visa stamped from Israel.  Travelers with an Israeli visa would have problems entering other Middle East countries and those with South African visas would have restrictions living or visiting other African countries.

Flying south from Kenya, the pilot announced over the intercom that we were then flying over Rhodesia.  He caught himself, and said, “Sorry, they have changed the name of this country recently, we are flying over Zimbabwe.”  The pilot went on to explain that the capital was no longer Salisbury but Harare.  Robert Mugabe had been elected the new president and I remember vividly the debate on Rhodesia independence with one commentator saying, “In Africa, ‘One man, one vote means one time.’” That turned out to be true for Zimbabwe as Mugabe has remained in power for now 43 years and has been internationally condemned for human rights abuse and bringing his country to financial ruin. 

Mugabe was not the only example of African despots.  Our neighbor to the west, Idi Amin had nearly destroyed Uganda and the fighting was still going on while we were flying to Johannesburg.  Gaddafi was the tyrant of the north in Libya, and Mboutu, as the father of the independent Zaire, was already head of state for 15 years and continued until 1997, embezzling millions of dollars from his poor nation.

Of course not all African leaders were tyrants.  Our own first president of Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta, came out of prison to lead a peaceful transition in independence.  Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, also, was one African president who led his nation well. 

As stated earlier, history is clearly seen after-the-fact, but during the ‘80’s the question was real.  Would Mandela be a Kenyatta or a Mugabe?  No one knew and it’s a bit disingenuous to criticize the skeptics of four decades back.

History clearly shows that Nelson Mandela followed a closer pattern of Kenyatta than Amin or Mugabe.  It is, therefore, right that we honor this man for the sense of forgiveness and willingness to move his country on the pathway of peace after his imprisonment.  Many of his ANC members, including his then wife Winnie, were not so forgiving and used their newfound freedom and power to murder and try to divide the country.  To Mandela’s credit, his example won over his detractors on both sides of the political landscape.  Mandela went beyond the good examples of Kaunda or Moi (who succeeded Kenyatta after his death) in that he stepped away from power after serving as president only five years.

The eulogies of Nelson Mandela today are lofty and deserved.  He was a remarkable man in many ways.  But one comment that caught my attention today was one reporter who said, “Mandela was not a religious man but who was spiritual.”  I’ve never really understood that term and pretty sure the people who say such things don’t understand it either.  Mandela will be buried in his ancestral village, probably with a traditional African ceremony.  While some liberation theologians might say Mandela had the spirit of Christ, as they sometimes say of Gandhi, he was probably was, at best, a humanist.  If Madiba believed in the faith of his father, who as a village priest, rather than that of his mother, a Methodist, then he would follow more into the category of an animist. 

My thoughts on Nelson Mandela fall right down the middle.  I do not condemn him as a former terrorist, nor do I elevate him to the status of saint.  As a politician he set a good example.  He proved the skeptics wrong that in Africa one man, one vote does not mean one time in every situation.  As a person he was an example of humility and forgiveness, wish that the followers of Christ would display as much.   As to his relation to his Creator, we can only hope he was more than just spiritual.