Question 2: How Should Missionaries Change in this Environment?

Photo: Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Berlin (bombed in World War II).

Another question:

This one comes from Indiana:

My question is how does the work of the missionary need to change? Many churches and pastors are taking on more of a missional focus and adjusting their responsibilities to equip the church to be more missional. How, if any, are missionaries changing their focus/responsibility?

Churches and Christian organizations are very slow to address changing environments.  I think there are number of reasons for this:

1) Christianity is a religion of theological absolutes and this often translates as organizational inflexibility. Any change has to be theologically justified first.  Where if a McDonald's restaurant finds that it's McChicken sandwich is not selling, they just quickly change it to a McRib Burger.  "Whatever works, we will do as soon as possible."

2) Christians often downplay the social sciences or other secular gauges of their culture because they think any misalignment or change in the environment is just the result of secularism and bad things.

So I think the response has been pretty slow.

I think there are a few things that missionaries now have to grapple with (and we are grappling with big time):

1.  Churches want higher levels of accountability and involvement. They no longer want to just send their checks in and hope it does some good.  They want to know that things are being developed, that there is some success, and they want to see it and experience it first-hand. I think this is good. And Three-Worlds is being structured this way. 

2. Churches need a good reason to go global through mission-agencies. Churches can easily by-pass mission agencies and go international using their own people.  Many churches also choose now to go global by going local (reach out to the local Russian community for instance).  More and more mission-agencies will have to add value to those that invest.  In other words, "why are we needed?"  At Three Worlds we are not just serving mission-fields.  We are trying to engage young people (in Europe/Middle East AND the USA), we are trying to encourage emerging, empowered and accountable young leaders (in both Europe/Middle East AND the USA), and we are trying to create healthy inner-connectivity.  We hope to help churches do their global work.  We don't need to do it all, but we find areas of partnership and we try to assist churches with understanding the realities on the ground.

If mission pastors from the USA, or youth from the USA, or college kids can develop their global engagement skills through our region, we want to help facilitate that...and that's what we are doing.

3.  Missionaries aren't for life anymore.

With the skepticism in religious institutions, our average missionary is not going to spend 30 years or even 10 years being a missionary with one organization.  The average tenure is now about 4 years.  For people under 30, the average tenure is even shorter.  That means we can't structure ourselves in a way where all our work in the region is dependent on people having multi-decade tenures.  This is a very big switch from the past.

4. Not all ministry needs to come from North America.  The North American church (and European church) is declining.  A lot of the most dynamic Christianity comes from places like Nigeria, South Korea, Indonesia, and Central America.  We do not always need to be in every country now or establish long-term missionary presences around the world.  This often hinders local growth.  Instead, we have to come alongside new emerging leaders in strategic and limited ways.  There's a need for theological instruction, there's a need for sound giving practices, and a large need for personal, spiritual, financial accountability.

5. Evangelism is not enough. Younger generations of Christians want to see that we are having an impact on our communities or the countries we are working in.  Helping people start businesses, cleaning the environment, and improving the quality of people's life.  This is good in my opinion.  Furthermore, evangelism without building healthy leadership structures, discipleship programs, and theological substance often leads to chaos--or worse yet, heresy.

This is why at Three Worlds we are concerned with Red, Green, and Blue--seeking to support the church internationally in a number of areas (read more at the link).

6. Specialization matters. With the Global and Christian landscape changing as much as it is, it's more important to be careful in hiring missionaries now (this term is not even helpful anymore in many places.  It's vague and implies evangelism only.  And it certainly doesn't help in getting visas in much of the world).  The one-size-fits-all model of missionaries is not as useful. Western mission needs to be more about strategic assistance for the global church--and this means hiring people that have the skill-sets to offer the specific assistance needed.

These are just 6 ways that I think things have to change for missionaries and mission-agencies.  Now whether they are really re-calibrating with these things in mind---I'm skeptical.  But here at Three Worlds, the combination of the global shifts in Christianity, the economic recession, and the debilitated and fragmented nature of the Church of God means we have no choice but to internalize these 6 things and make them part of our DNA.

Thanks for the question.

Question 1: Is political liberation the reason for Christian growth?

From time to time, we get questions from people regarding what we write in Three Worlds (or previously Chinatimesonline.com) or interesting comments, so if you have a question, feel free to send it in.  Here's one from Malaysia:

I recently read a book suggesting that the religious fervor might be a result of the risks of becoming politically active.. it's socially acceptable to become religiously active, but not politically active... so religion serves as a very important and accepted social outlet.

Christian growth often coincides with the need for an outlet of community expression, but not always.

Christian uniqueness

Christianity has the potential to grow anytime a church or Christians are really living out the principals of Christ.  They are inspiring, and at the heart of Christianity is agape-love, which means not only loving your neighbor but seeking their highest good above your own.  This is not a concept found in other religions and it is very inspiring.  The linkage between loving the neighbor and a personal God that personally loves the individual is a radical move in the world of religions.  This I think is Christianity's most potent factor.  It insists on personal meaning as defined by a personal God, and it does not root itself in any particular culture or civilization (as the other religions do).  Furthermore, it insists that scripture is sacred in any language (another radical move) and that all cultures have equal access to God (yet another radical move).  Compare this to Islam, for instance.

But there are sociological reasons why Christianity grows.

South Korea:

An example of Christianity being a political voice for the voiceless would be the growth of Christianity in Korea.  Christianity grew to 30% in South Korea because Christian communities were the ones that preserved Korean heritage and language during the Japanese occupation at the turn of the 20th Century.  Unable to express themselves, Christianity served a purpose of political, cultural resistance.

Amongst the Yi People of Yunnan, China

This was not the case for the Yi of China who are now the most Christianized minority group in China.  Upon hearing the story of Jesus from Western missionaries, they found parallels between Jesus the messiah and a messiah that they once knew in their heritage but forgot about it.  Upon following the precepts of Christ, they found that their communities gave up gambling, infidelity, crime and other vices.  The results of this new moral ethic transformed the society and made their dying, oppressed communities come to life.  Christianity, instead of eroding culture, preserved it.

In Africa

There are now 390 million Christians in Africa.  The number one reason that Christianity grew was because of the translation of the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular.  Once the Bible was put into local tongues and local customs were permitted into worship, African Christian movements.  Today there are many African denominations that have churches scattered all over the world, including the USA.

In China

The subject of my studies in graduate school was the growth of Christianity amongst Han Chinese in the People's Republic of China.  As the socialist safety net disappeared in China, Christian communities were noticed for their care for the poor.  They did not have decadent wealthy people that refused to share the wealth, neither did they have hopeless, destitute people among them.  Furthermore, as Communist ideology began to collapse in 1978 with Deng's modernization projects, Christianity filled the void by providing a solid moral compass.  The persecution of underground Christians then further fueled the growth making Christianity seem local (because they paid for it with their blood) instead of a foreign transplant (as foreign missionaries weren't permitted after 1950).

So all of these factors lead to a situation today where China has 130 million Christians, and Christians permeate every facet of Chinese life, including the Communist Party where it's now legal to be a member and be a Christian.  Wenzhou is the most Christian city in China (the Jerusalem of the East) and Beijing has more than 20,000 Christian groups meeting each week.  China has the 3rd largest population of evangelicals in the world.

In Brazil

In Brazil Christianity has grown because it empowers the poor and it empowers women.  Particularly Pentecostalism which values women and youth.  Poor areas are served by Christian churches, and in the church people have direct access to God and the Holy Spirit.  This is very liberating in societies (like india, china, or Brazil) where women or minorities have been told they are of no value.  But as with the Yi in China,  the quality of people's lives improve so much with Christianity that this seems to be a key factor.

In Bolivia and Chile

Going back to my reader's point, both in Bolivia and Chile, Evangelical growth came as a form of political, religious, and ethnic resistance.  In Boliva, the Catholic church had a terrible record with indigenous Bolivians.  The Protestants benefited from this (I address this in my latest book Mosaic).  In Chile, Evangelicals protested against the Pinochet junta and this political resistance did form strong religious communities---which have since waned since Chile stabilized.

So sometimes it is political resistance, but Christians in the non-Western world are often surprisingly unpolitical.  If anything, the difficulty of there circumstances convinces them that politics is useless.  One can say that perhaps they cling to faith as a way of surviving in countries that don't provide, but there are also many of instances of personal transformation (addictions broken, marriages saved, finances helped) that also play a part and are not simply a substitute for government or a resistance to government.

the Prosperity Gospel

Unfortunately, there's a darker side to this.  There are quite a few new churches emerging that promise wealth to those that believe in Jesus.  Jesus' skepticism toward money is pretty obvious, but from Malaysia to Nigeria to Texas, there are lots of churches now that preach get wealthy schemes and are growing rapidly.  They are heretical and unfortunate.  But they are often very successful.

The Church Outside the Institution and Outside Christendom

With Traditional Christendom struggling and people skeptical of the institutional church, in many parts of the world (Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and now the USA), a growing movement of Christians is seeking to do church outside the building.  Since the church is NOT the building, and the church is NOT the institution, some Christians are finding that it is better to live outside the traditional church.  The generation under 30 is especially feeling this way.

There was an article about two young men,   David Knepprath and Josh Guisinger  (pictured above), that moved into a low-income apartment complex in suburban Portland, Oregon to create community.  This is an area where there is drugs, prostitution, and gangs.  The quality of life is low in an apartment complex like this.  But these 2 young Christians moved in and cook meals for people, host birthday parties for tenants, and do a variety of things to build up community.  At the forefront of their goals is not building a church, or even converting people, but to serve people and make their lives a little bit better in tangible ways.

Excerpt from the article:

So while they were open about their Christianity, they didn't plunge into conversations about their faith. Nor did they move in acting as if they could solve the social ills at Barberry Village.

"We were very conscious of that," said Knepprath, who has since moved out but remains active in the ministry. "Our perspective from the start was that we're not here with all the solutions, or even thinking we know all the problems."

So they walked door to door, handing out chocolate-chip cookies. A letter explained their purpose and faith. They invited residents to the first community meal.

A few people shut the door in their faces. One guy answered with a Taser gun. But others accepted the cookies in the spirit they were offered, and the first seeds of friendship were sown.

It's not unusual for Christians to move into impoverished areas to work with the poor. But movements like new monasticism have gained momentum in recent years.

The benefits of this from the perspective of people dealing in Post-Christendom settings is that it makes it obvious to the secular community that we are not trying to ghettoize ourselves or use people to build up an institution.

Of course, Christianity conquered the Roman Empire by doing this exact thing.  It was the older pagan faiths of the Roman world that was institutionalized.  Christianity was made of small communities, living together and bringing an unusual sense of community and overall stability to the barbarism of collapsing Rome.

The same thing was seen with Christian communities in China amidst the destruction of the communist ethos in China after 1978.  The moral vacuum that erupted was filled by Christian communities that knew how to care for their own and others in a society that was transitioning from forced communalism to radical individualism.

Read the full article here:

The Death of Christendom: Why it Happened.

Here is a riveting speech protesting the Pope's visit to the U.K. in light of the sexual abuse scandals of the Catholic Church.  I will comment afterward:

This is not an anti-Catholic post, rather I wanted to post it as an example of yet another reason why the institutional church is suffering globally---most especially in Europe.

The Rise of Christendom (Institutionalism)

The Church of Jesus Christ is not Christendom neither is it institutionalism.  The Church of Jesus Christ is "where two or more are gathered in my name."  Nevertheless, Christianity has, over time, formed larger more organized religious communities.  The propensity toward forming a church organization can be seen in Acts as culture and the need to coordinate charity result in the need for committees, leadership teams, delegation and--ultimately complexity.

In other words, while Jesus was not necessarily interested in creating bureaucratic institutions, the call to preach the Gospel and, care for the poor, and take the message to the ends of the Earth meant organization.

The church, which was originally a persecuted, misunderstood community eventually conquered the Roman Empire.  The small band of disciples grew to such a dramatic extent that the Empire that once crucified Jesus, was no governed by Christians and the seat of persecution (Rome) was now the center of the Christian movement.

The merging of imperial power (earthly governmental power) and the Christian church is known as Christendom.  The Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the many Catholic (and later Protestant) kingdoms and states that emerged in Europe and happily merged politics with Christianity.  Well, it wasn't happy.  Each country and each King had its own hidden agenda and the Roman Catholic Church became corrupt as well because, as we all know, power corrupts (something Jesus warned us about).  "My Kingdom is not of this world," Jesus said.

However, as Christianity entered its institutional phase, Christianity went truly global.  Not all of this was bad.  The Jesuits in China, De Las Casas in the West Indies, and many other Christians brought charity, grace, and intelligence to countries far away.  But along with this came the Spanish Conquistadors, the partition of South America by the Portugese and Catholics.

I recently read about one European explorer who landed in the Americas and couldn't figure out how to even feed himself amidst the different American vegetation so he was wholly dependent on the local Indians.  This didn't stop him from declaring the entire land for his King, Jesus, and his country.

But the combination of politics and Christianity ended up in catastrophe.  The Wars of Religion (and the disease that accompanied that era) wiped out 1/3 of everyone in Europe.  The Enlightenment and the secularization of governments (which includes democratization) eventually (after the rise of Fascism and Communism which the Christian Church often enabled) set the stage for a more peaceful era in Europe.  But all of that came at a price, the loss of trust in Christian institutions.

We'll discuss the decline in belief in institutional Christianity in the USA at a later date--but in Europe, The Roman Catholic Church has been in decline for a while.  Some countries like Poland and Ireland have had a close relationship with the church (politics and religion still mix).  But these sex scandals are accelerating the secularization.

The Effects of the Roman Catholic Church Scandal

For those of us that are Christians, what are we up against in sharing our faith here?  This is where some of the Emerging/missional Post-Modern Christian Church makes sense.  The video in the previous post (Michael Frost) is helpful in Europe.  American Evangelicals get nervous when they hear the language of the Emerging/Missional church.  But this is the paradigm that churches have had to operate in in Australia, New Zealand, and Secular Europe for a long time.

Protestantism has not been that trusted in much of Europe.  In most of Europe, Protestants (and especially Evangelicals) are viewed as a cult.  This is a hold-over of the time when the church and state where the same:  "the only legitimate church is the Catholic Church."  "The only legitimate church is the Eastern Orthodox church."  So Protestantism always faces an uphill battle in Eastern and Western Europe.

This Roman Catholic Scandal is having huge repercussions for the Catholic Church.  There is clear evidence of a cover-up and in places like Ireland, the abuse of minors was systematic and covered up at all levels.  The church then (Protestant or Catholic) becomes a place of fear, of bad memories, of corruption.  In a place like Ireland, building a Protestant church with a white chapel and steeple, might not be such a good idea.  Even the building is a threat or has negative connotations.

This is why the approach that Michael Frost advocates in the previous video is something to take seriously.  It is not simply a theological matter.  It is a deep, cultural matter.  One that few Americans can relate to.  American Christians have no concept of what life as  Christian in Ireland would be like.  A country divided by Christianity and the largest church being associated with political control, all education, and institutions known for sexual violations.

For American Christians, religion is benign.  Christianity is benign.  It's not scary, secularism is scary (this is now changing as American Christians are afraid of Islam---but they can't understand why Christianity would ever be viewed as scary).  That is NOT the case in countries where Christianity aligned itself with Fascists (Spain), or with Communist interrogations (Russia), or systematic sexual abuse (Ireland).  Americans underestimate the danger of Christianity when it is in the wrong hands.  Jesus warned us, but we don't listen.

For our work in Europe here at Three Worlds, we have no choice but to look deeply at the history, culture, and negative effects of the Christian Church on this continent.  Quick dismissals of everything associated with these new approaches is careless.  Christendom has been dying for 500 years, and that's probably a good thing to a large extent.

Notice that the man in the video respects Jesus--and suspects that there is a difference between true Christianity (what Jesus preached) and the institutional Church.  Where this guy is at is where most people are at.  "There may be value in faith, and there may be value in the words of Jesus, but there's no value in the organized church."

We can critique these new approaches (and we will), but we must acknowledge the cultural, historical and sociological challenges that our churches face here in this region and in this age.

The Post-Modern/Post-Christendom Shift

As we process the Three Worlds (which we will do a lot), we begin with Michael Frost explaining what a missional church is and how it is differing from the traditional church.  This is about a 55 minute talk, but it's well-worth listening to.  It's inspiring and helpful in understanding the issues.

In general, these churches are making sure that they engage the secular and they are deeply concerned about making sure that people in their churches spend time in the world--as opposed to staying inside their church and trying to attract people.

We'll look at critiques against this later, but for now, this is a really good explanation of what the healthiest missional churches might look like.

The 3W Team Approach Explained

Last week, we had our first Three-Worlds team meeting here in Berlin.  All of our crew was here (except for one), for an all-day meeting that covered a wide array of topics

In our region (Europe-Middle East), we are doing a team approach to mission and ministry.  I've shared with you that our top priorities are to 1) Engage young people in cross-cultural ministry 2) Support empowered leaders under 45--that respect accountability  and 3) create healthy inner-connectivity in the CHOG in this region and beyond.  Through it all, we will help churches process the three worlds of Christianity: Traditional, Post-Christendom, and Non-Western Christianity.

Why a Team Approach?

As a result of making Mosaic, it became very clear that a lack of coordination and organization has left the Church of God in a very fractured and weak state.  Our efforts are rarely unified, we create islands of isolation around the world, and it is always unclear who is accountable to who.  In order to prevent this kind of chaos in our region, we will have to have a clear strategy and set of priorities (see the paragraph above).  On top of that, we will have to be coordinated in our approach (hence the Three-Worlds team) to prevent making the mistakes of the past.

What has been our track record with teams?

Frankly, it's been awful.  Why? Because teams are assembled in a haphazard way and (in typical CHOG fashion) we assume things will just work out.  The reality is that people are complicated, they have different agendas, different skill-sets, different personality types---and all of these things complicate the picture.  That is why it is vital for their to be clear leadership, a clear ethos, and a clear direction for any mission team.  When these things are absent (or things are just assumed) usually disaster is soon to follow.

Is this centralized, autocratic rule?

No, because it is a team approach.  The goal is to have people using their skill-sets to their full ability.  To have people put into places where they really fit and can succeed.  And the hope is that with a higher level of processing our mission-fields will be far healthier.  They will not be subject to the whims of one person making decisions on their own that then doom everyone around them.

In order to get to that place, however, it requires strong leadership that is clear about how and what that team will attempt to do.  That is where Jamie and I come in.  We've identified the top challenges facing the CHOG, and we are mobilizing our efforts to that end.  We are not trying to be all things to all people (that's non-strategic and unrealistic).  Instead, we are focusing on what needs to be done, and what we can do well.

What kind of things were covered at the team meeting?

Here are some of the issues we covered:

*Introducing Patrick, Jamie and Marco

*RC role delegation for Patrick and Jamie (who does what)

*Explaining the 3W concept and how you can explain it to your churches

*New ways of engaging our churches and doing itineration

*Economic Forecast

*Practical ways of dealing with the economic downturn

*Future Team Retreats

*Determining additions to the team

*Our 3W media presence

*Top Ministry priorities for 2010-2011 (assessment year)

*Nachtigalls calendar (scheduled visits 2010-2011) and field-visitation philosophy

*Member Care Issues

*Bi-Annual team reading assignment (and announcement of first book).

This is part of the agenda.  As you can see, we cover many issues--but in all issues, there is clarity.  Who does what? What are the top priorities?  What can missionaries expect from us as leaders?  How do we present our strategy to people outside of the group?

Will the Team Grow?

We hope to keep the team relatively small.  Someone saying "they have a call" to join will not be enough.  That is far too subjective.  Other questions will have to be examined.  Do they have a track record of successful ministry?  Do they communicate well with young people?  Can they engage all three worlds?  Do their personality-types fit into the 3W personality type?  Can they submit to leadership and direction?  And on the other side---if given freedom, will they be able to structure their lives well when given some degree of autonomy?

Chances are that few people will fit this profile.  And that is okay.  Because team unity comes first.  If a team can't be united, it makes a mockery of the Gospel.  Furthermore, we are not trying to plant missionaries in new countries for 50 years.  We are in a post-post Colonial era.  What is primarily needed in our region is strengthening up the fields that we do have and making sure that the younger generations are being adequately supported and trained.

The bulk of the missionary force nowadays should come from China, or Africa or Latin America.  Not always, but often.  And in that case, we have the history and connections to be in more of a support role than in those days when all missionary activity came from Europe and America.  It's a new age and our focus must adjust.

We've learned a lot about what works and doesn't work in the last 100 years.  We need to apply those lessons learned to our work now.

PHOTO: Most of our 3W Team---Photo taken by Marco.