Daniel Kruis

Greg,

I am sorry to say that you are very naive in your understanding of Islam as a faith.  While you are right that it is not a monolithic faith--the question is what is the teaching of the founder.  He was an extremist Muslim.  Any Muslim who adheres to the 7 pillars of Islam--is committed to Jihad--the 7th pillar.  Benizir Bhutto--former Prime Minister of Pakistan once noted that only 10% of Muslims are exteame--that still represents 100,000,000 Muslims.  So it is not a "fringe". 

It is also important to observe that this form of Islam, which the "Prophet" practiced himself--going to the battlefield 29 times, slaughtering people who did not convert---is the pattern for doing Jihad.  Saudi Arabia was unified under the Saud family following the same practice--known as Whabism.   Islam grew across the Middle East--Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and North Africa in 2 years.  This did not happen with "idea prosetylization" but through war and coercion.  Isis, Al Queda, etc. are all committed to this form of "evangelism"

An interesting U.S. constitutional question is whether we shoud permit "freedom of religion" for a religion that over its history has been committed to coercive conversion that would take away other peoples "freedom" of religion.

Mike, Please contact me via email  [email protected]  then we can also exchange phone numbers and chat.

You are right on target with what you say, especially about business partnerships in Nigeria (or Ethiopia).  They need to be real partnerships--pursuing real businesses with best practices--and both sides of the partnership need to be engaged with the 7 key parts to running a good business.  Product R&D, HR, Financial management, Capital development, Marketing & Sales, Product manufacture and distribution, and Supply Chain management (IT has become an 8th essential key part)--with a diligent eye on Return on Investment.  

The weakness in Parnters world wide, in my opinion is that it seeks to support Christian business people without becoming stake holders in the process--and not really expecting much in return.  Real business does not function that way, and real business works really well when a team with a vested interest is seeing that all 7 key parts of a business funciton at a high level.  

We in the west have three things to offer our partners in developing country--1) Our Christian heart to do business for His kingdom and not simply our own profit.  This also affects our ethics.  2) Our technological advantages--including our business acumen (knowledge of how the 7 keys work to make great businesses) that can be joined with theirs--which is often incredible.  3) Capital resources---while I agree with Mike---that the in country business people need to be invested  in the project with their funds---poverty is the absence of money--capital---We need to create Christian venture capital companies that can tap into our wealthy--recession beat up--investors in the U.S. and cause huge capital flows to well run businesses in developing countries.

Regarding Parrtners, Lou and Steve, they do wonderful work and are deeply involved with business men who do great work.     I used to attend there annual summits regularly, one of the only pastors who has.   But the basic paradigm is still "charitable, business development", and is led from the context  of development work and not business as business as done here in the U.S.  When our business men become "charitable, business mentors" they do wonderful work, and some may even invest some funds throught the global development funds---but they do not do business as if it were their own, or as if they were fully vested, full at risk partners where they are willing to lay it all on the line as they had to when they did busiesss successfully in the States.  As a result there are limits to their potential for successful business outcomes.  There is an artificality that limits the businesses potential to attract huge amounts of capital to the business enterprises.   There are huge opportunities for profitable enterprises in places like Ethiopia, but we create an artificial barrier that prohibits charitable businessmen from the Christian community in the U.S. from entering such opportunities in partnership with Ethiopian believers as  a for-profit enterprise.   As a result the amount of capital, technology transfer etc. are limited and retarded.  The Chinese, the Arabs, and the Indians enter these countries to do business--- our Christian businessmen wonder why we are not present with them.  They prefer us because even when we do business as business we have a different kind of relationship that is fair and without avarice.

Let me switch my comments away from the topic of the role of business in missions to a rough sketch of how we should focus our mission resources both people, time and funds.    

First, let me say that part of my experience and education comes from being raised in on one of the most dysfunctional mission fields in the CRC's history---our first foreign mission field among the Navajo people.  It was dysfunctional and still perpetuates that dysfunction because of parentalism, dependancy, control issues, and a general failure to raise up and release leaders.     We essentially failed to apply the principles of self-governence, self-support and self-propagation.  When I look at CRC missions as a whole we have done better over time, but still make some of the same mistakes.

Our mission strategy with both CRWM and CRWRC need to simplify our approach to several basic mechanisms that stand beside our brothers in the churches we serve in other countries.  

1) We should say to any evangelical denomination that we will support and resource their church planting efforts with 80% of a decent salary for every church planter that their local churches raise up and send out.  In Ethiopia this would be $80/month.  In Mexico it might be $480/month.   This support will decline over a 5-6 year period--and may be susttained longer if new church planter begins a second congregation after 3 years.

2) We will support the development of mini-seminary training (5 lessons on each seminary course) put on laptop computers--filmed in the language of the church planter by a more educated pastor.  We will support these "apostolic" educated leaders with a higher salary (x3) and expense budget.  We may also support 

3) We will send pastors from our U.S. churches twice a year to participate in conferences for these pastors--who with their congregations in the U.S. will develop distance pastoral relationships with key leaders in these church planting efforts.

4) CRWRC will focus primarily on helping various denominations set up "diaconal conferences" that assist pastors and their deacons in ministering to the poor.   These diaconal conferences will be shown how to run micro-loan programs, provide startup funds for businesses, provide loans for private school development, and advise in special projects that are being developed---sourced by the people in the conferences.

5)  We will limit our field staff to a few country coordinators whose job is to know the partners with whom we engage, and oversee the development of 1-4.   Note: It costs us around $100,000 annually to field a missionary--who drive around in nice Toyota Land Cruisers while our partners in ministry struggle with transportation.   For $100,000 we could help local congregations send 100 church planters in Ethiopia and most of sub-Saharan Africa.

6) We would also become very intentional about raising up Christian businessmen, and investors who would selectivvely joint venture with Christian businessmen in businesses that have potential for economic transformation.

Most of the denominational leaders with whom I work in Ethiopia would love this approach to partnering with them.  Most are more capable than I am, as are the businessmen.  While some mentoring takes place between us, it is really the encouragement, prayers, and resources that they desire.

The rough sketch that I propose above will probably not be easily embraced because we are comfortable as things have been done in the past.  But the CRC could release 5-10,000 church planters if we pursued this type of approach, and our ties between US churches would be greatly enhanced. 

I view this forum. Fronse as something of a "think tank" where policy that affects the global mission of the CRC is dicussed openly, and hopefully that it those who have responsibility for setting mission policy egage in the discussion and adjust some of what they think and how they set policy accordingly.  

As we think about how we carry on the "mission" of the church I have been looking at three issues.  The first has to do with general missionn philosophy as it affects policy.  This has to do with how we can most affectively deploy resources and people the most effectively.  the 2nd issue which we have also been discussing has to do with how to best engage and mobilize the Christian business community in both the mission of the church and in economic development empowerment.  The 3rd issue which also affects this discussion of mobilizing the body of Christ effectively, is how we partner with other Christians both at home in in missions (I have addressed this more in the forum on the Belhar confession).  

Your comments in a previous commment about the Reformed churches in Zambia and South Africa relate to this issue.  Our we as "Reformed" thinking people most effective in extending the gospel of the kingdom by partnering and encouraging other Reformed communities with our resources and time.  Or are we also effective in extending the gospel of our king as effeccitvely by engaging with denominational mission aspirations from various evangelical fellowships who are aggressively engaged in church planting.

So let me again suggest that you address the six points--amend them, add a 7th point.

Fronse,

 Let me say that one of our goals is to place before those who do make policy decisions with perceptive insight that will nudge them to make quality changes that affect our churches and Christian business community in Africa.   My motivation is quite simple and comes from being on the streets of Addis--and making a decision not to give often to beggers, but to spend myself on behalf of the poor with real answers.  It also comes from working with church leaders from various denominations--and helping plant over 80 churches in 3 years.  It comes from watching a missionary family loading up into a brand new Toyota land cruiser, and knowing that my short-term mission work on my own budget probably produced more mission transformation than the paid staff person.

 I am aware of the power of "perceptive insight" on mission policy.  In the early 80's CRC home missions rejected the idea of seminarians planting churches--until as sem students a few of us challenged that notion--and said that graduating seminarians were the ideal planters.  Home Missions proceeded to develop a church planters internship for graduating students--that greatly increased the number of churches being planted. In the mid-80's I pointed out to Home Mission leaders that their campaign of 400,000 CRC members by 2000 would not happen unless they changed how clergy were trained and raised up.  Seminary simply was not developing enough graduates to meet the need for new churches, besides seminary graduates tended to be more oriented toward status quo ministries than those raised up and trained by alternate means.  The Leadership Development Networks resulted from this conversation, as well as a greater opening for the use of evangelists trained by different means to be pastoring new churches. "Perceptive Insights" come when you and I see dysfunction, dependency relationships, and parental-ism at work in how we support missions.  "Perceptive Insights" gain momentum with those who make missions policy when someone like you concurs that $100,000 spent on an ex-pat missionary staff could support 80 church planters in Zambia at $100/mos/planter.   This is the same cost for evangelists in Ethiopia---but I suggest that we only provide 80% of the support--while an Ethiopian sending church provides the other 20%. Changing mission policy is not easy.  Folding up dysfunctional commitments in missions is even harder.  Withdrawing funds, and redirecting them for more effective strategies is painful and requires leaders of mission agencies to sacrifice.  Many people are comfortable in the mission jobs they have, and are satisifed with the fruit of their labors, even if it is less effective than other strategies.

Yes, we stand in need of a lot of prayer, and the attitude that comes with it to help us all agree to walk togethr.

Steve,

I am very appreciative of your response.  Very open, honest, and on target.  I am aware of the limited knowledge that I have of CRWMs  work and where it is going.  I am encouraged by the re-positioning that you are engaged in.  I would love to work with CRWM in several of the areas discussed--helping the CRC churches understand where things are moving to;  helping define and implement "coming alongside" strategies--especially in Africa;  working to evaluate how to withdraw from commitments and relationships that used the "mission driven" model;  

I am aware of the Timothy Leadership Training materials.  Very good stuff, but limited when working with 40 church planters who speak Neur or Anuak and don't have the capacity to study English material.  I think we can create mini-courses--re-taught, filmed, and placed on Netbooks for Neur pastors to watch and discuss in their villages in the bush.  It can be duplicated repeatedly and would help reach all of the remaining unreached peoples groups in Ethiopia etc.

Thanks for your engagement.  I have always known that you were a man who seeks to be in the center of the Lord's will. Blessing.