Daniel Kruis

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.

On target article.  I work regularly in Ethiopia, and believe that "Business not Charity" is the solution.  All Christians in the West should re-allocate their charity, tithes, donations, gifts, or offerings into investments with business partners in Africa.

or they should consider investing 10% of their portfolio in impact investing--see investforward.net

 

There is another side to this discussion on evolution and creation that must be considered.  Rich ended his perceptive log with the comment “Let's stick to what we're good at!”,  At first I thought that he had said “Let’s stick to what we are called to”.   I would edit that idea further to say, “lets stand vigilant in our calling as shepherds of God’s flock”.  We are called to protect the flock that God has given into our care.

When students from our churches head off to Calvin College, we have a responsibility to protect them from potential heretical thinking.  When we have science teachers who come from our denominational school, and teach the theory of evolution as fact, it creates head and heart trauma.  We have a responsibility to respond intelligently but with great humility.

One of the most profound teachings in the book of Job occurs when God asks Job the simple question, “Where were you when I stretched out the heavens?”  The answer is so obvious that Job does not need to respond. 

When Howard Van Til wrote his book “The Fourth Day” his scientific views of astronomy relied on the principle of uniformity outlined in Newtonian Physics, which had been falsified by Einstein’s theory of relativity.  A simple adjustment in Van Til’s assertations needed to be made.  “It appears to me that the world is 4 million years old”—“but I wasn’t there when it came into being”

In Calvin professsor Schnieder’s article on “Recent Genetic Science and Christian Theology on Human Origin…” He uses Francisco Ayala’s genomic mathematical calculations to support his hermeneutical perspective.  Yet Ayala’s mathematics are significantly problematic. Schneider is not a scientist—only a theologian who does his theology with an arrogance that requires a sound rebuke “Hey Schnieder, where were you when God stretched out the heavens”.  He repeatedly makes assertions of certitude that expect the reader to accept them simply because he has arrogantly said they are true i.e. Job was written post-exhile, genomic sciences conclusions are---, “that paleo science has proved---that x,y, and z have occurred for millennium”.  Proof really requires having been there.  In fact there are actually plausible, scientific explanations of such phenomenon by adherents of short earth thinking.

When ever we look beyond the horizon of history our theories and “knowledge” are severely limited.   This is true for both sides of the debate.  I am neither a short age of the earth advocate nor a supporter of a long evolutionary perspective.  Evidence for both perspectives have some merit.   I am not even tied to a concordist hermeneutic, nor do I fully reject a more Barthian view of scripture--alla Schnieder an Harlow.  But I must always admit that " I was not there when God stretched out the heavens", and I am convinced that I see through a glass darkly, and I know that faith is based on evidence of things not seen---and my eyes have not seen everything. 

A guiding principle for all Calvin professors who claim to be interested in “academic freedom” --should be a guarded pastoral humility.   A keen awareness of the limits of their “knowledge”, and the care of young minds for whom they stand accountable.   They should be cautious of embracing ideas from world views where the adherents presupposition is that ther is no God.  And they should definitely protect the flock from being driven like a herd, by the next extrapolation of "scientists" who have "certitude" because of the most recent scientific discoveries.

Calvin itself should seriously—in the name of academic freedom and integrity, hire and engage scientists, and theologians who can also carry the other side of the debate with serious humility.   They should consider that they must also be vigilant to guard the hearts and minds of the whole Christian community that they serve.  There witness in this controversial area should be gracious, meek, and full humility.

Finally, all should be aware of the Lord's question “Where were you when I stretch out the heavens?”  The answer should be clear to all of us--"I wasn't there"

 

Regarding the use of businessmen to strengthen the church.   This should be a natural for us with our concept of the Reformed faith integrating every sphere of society, but very little thought has been developed in this area.  Business is often thought as being to contaminated by “worldliness”, and yet the CRCNA has some of the greatest (and wealthiest) business people in the world.  Profitability when doing business as mission is looked at unfavorably.

 

Our business community should be engaged not simply as mentors, but as angels and investors—doing business as business—using best business practices.  This should always be as profitable a relationship for all the parties involved as possible.  When we do business as charity, or even as developmental aid we do not do business as well as it needs to be done.

What we need to create a  small-cap funds, mission venture funds, and seed money funding (which we have)  that permit Christian US business people and investors to engage hand in hand with the Christian business community in Africa, Asia, and South America---in places where we or others are extending the gospel of the kingdom through church planting, and diaconal ministries.    Mike, if I understand your comment  regarding “our investments” it strikes me that you have a fear of a mutually profitable relationship that should be nurtured between Christian business men from both sides of the equation.  I am guessing that you are not a business person---most development workers are not business people.

Sound business investment practices alongside are Christian brothers in countries like Ethiopia and Nigeria can when done as business bring an end to severe poverty.  When business is done as charity it falters and fails.  What I am saying is known by Christian businessmen in Ethiopia.  They get it immediately.  I am not capable of mentoring them—if they have survived as businessmen in their setting, they are often

We are trying to launch a three wheeled, rural automobile factory in partnership with Ethiopian partners.  We are in the 3rd phase of our development.  As we move to our fourth phase we anticipate being able to attract $3 million.  The 5th phase  $12 million.  And we should have a several models that will work in the rural agricultural setting.   Poverty is the absence of $$$ capital.  Business is the solution to poverty—not development aid.   We hope to undergird the huge Christian community in Ethiopia with the resource of affordable transportation.   We hope to have a program that will permit a church planter to own a rural transport vehicle that will generate enough income to support his family.

We have a partnership and ownership of a 600 acre farm in Southern Ethiopia. If we could attract $300,000 investment to this farm we would be able to establish a partnership model between U.S. investors and the farmers we are working with there.    This are of Southern Ethiopia, and Southern  Sudan is huge—as big as the breadbasket of the Midwest.  Their largely Presbyterian.  They want us to partner with them.  We—the CRCNA with its millionaire farmers could wipe out the cycle of hunger in the horn of Africa.   But we need to move to a totally different paradigm to have this kind of impact.

 

It seems to me,  that while the Word and Deed has relevance to this discussion,  it actually pushes us to answer the wrong questions when it comes to organizational unity and the CRCs mission efforts.  It is important that we seek to ask the right questions before we can find the right answers.  A preliminary run on the right questions:

1)     How do we most effectively mobilize our resources (people, time, money, relationships with our partners) to most effectively assist our partners to fulfill the Mission of God  in their part of the world?

2)     What organizational structure would most effectively administer our efforts to reach the lost, and bring shalom into their world?

3)     What principles should we adopt to guide us and help us evaluate our effectiveness?

If these questions are rightly framed,  then we can seek the right answers.

80-90% of our efforts should focus on nurturing church planting.  All of our diaconal/deed efforts should be focused on coming along side our partners in this church planting effort.  It is true that “true religion is to look after orphans and the widows”.   But creating new communities of believers—new churches is the most effective way to accomplish that end.  My wife and children seed $30/month to support a child in Yezelem Minch a community children support program.  We have also raise  $80/month to support a church planter  in Ethiopia.  That church presently has 120 members and has planted two daughter churches.  As a community of believers they help 20-30 children.  Dollar for dollar the  impact both on lost people who need to know Jesus, and on the “looking after orphans and widows” is  far greater than our support of one child.

 I have helped churches in Ethiopia plant over 100 churches, and the multiplier effect will increase that to 300 in a few years.  Mission India has a similar record in India.  I am echoing here Lou’s primary concern—that deed ministry be focused always  as an adjunct to gospel/church planting ministry.  I think this is Dave Feddes concern as well.  The apostles work in the NT was never focused on isolated deed ministry to the poor.  It was always focused on the primary task of preaching the gospel, planting churches, and raising up leaders (which included diaconal ministry workers—so they could keep their focus on the real source of transformational power—the gospel).

Finally,  I support the concept of CHRISTIAN REFORMED GLOBAL MINISTRIES, but only if its mandate is to develop guiding principles that are used to launch multiple organizations that mobilize the resources provided by the CRCNA community.  As Rich DeRuiter indicate—“uniting word and deed is a great idea. Merging these two agencies is not. Something essential is bound to be lost.”

We all know that our mission agencies have certain levels of dysfunction: Sometimes they are in grown,  lacking vision, committed to dependency relationships, and to employing staff or supporting partners even when they are un-fruitful.  Or in the case of CRWRC unable to utilize within their paradigm the very people who could help the poor the most—business people.  Fortunately they were flexible enough to start a new agency—Partners World wide.  By nurturing the development of this new organization

Let me give one more illustration.  In 2007 a CRWM staff member accompanied me to Ethiopia.  I introduced him to denominational leaders that represented 42,000,000 believers.  Our goal was to begin partnering with them to equip and send church planters.  Our organization was small—but our potential was huge.  All we were asking for was the backing of CRWM to raise support among CRC churches in Minnesota—they already supported our vision, but wanted CRWMs stamp of approval.  They chose not to support our efforts at that time and instead sent a professor to an AoG Bible College in Uganda.  I assume that the cost of the ex-pat missionary approached $80-100,000 annual support.  With the same money using the internet and a few trips to Ethiopia we could have planted 500 churches.  Which by now would have multiplied into 1500 churches. 

With the internet, tele-communications, cheap air-travel, net-books, digital video graph Missions can be entirely transformed.  We can, working with CRC churches and pastors in the U.S. develop “missionary swat “ teams that connect and develop church planting partnerships, and diaconal ministry support that will complete the great commission in the 10-40 window.   If CHRISTIAN REFORMED GLOBAL MINISTRIES becomes a heavy, top down, denominational agency it would hinder the advance of the gospel.  But if it was focused simply on guiding a flat organization with multiple “missionary swat teams” focused on doing the main thing—preaching the gospel, equipping leaders for ministry, and developing their capacity to minister to orphans and widows.  Well. . . .

Thanks, John.

I need to say that Dr. Becker was helpful, when he encouraged me to form an organization for the work in Ethiopia.  He and even took a long walk to discuss our church planting efforts.

 

CRC Global Ministries:

It seems to me that there are two critical issues (the priority of WORD over DEED and Effectiveness)  when we attempt to answer the questions about structure outlined in a previous entry:

1)     How do we most effectively mobilize our resources (people, time, money, relationships with our partners) to most effectively assist our partners to fulfill the Mission of God  in their part of the world?

2)     What organizational structure would most effectively administer our efforts to reach the lost, and bring shalom into their world?

3)      What principles should we adopt to guide us and help us evaluate our effectiveness?

Issue #1   what is the Church’s Mission in the world:

Its instructive that Jesus is the WORD, not the DEED.  But He is also the WORD made flesh,  dwelling among us(DEED).  In the great commission he sent his disciples into all the world to make disciples—WORD  (preach the gospel), and to baptize, teaching them (WORD) to do all that he had commanded—which included loving their neighbors (DEED).  When the apostles went out they placed a clear priority on Preaching the word.  A significant part of their method was raising up leaders who would preach, disciple, and gather the church.  DEED ministry followed these efforts as  Jesus incarnated the gospel of Love.  DEED ministry rarely led the mission, but it accompanied the work of the church.

John Rozeboom and Hank DeRooy once said to me when I first pastored in Salt Lake City.  “The main thing, is to make sure the main thing remains the main thing”.  While they never told me what the main thing was I always knew it was to preach the word, to make disciples, and to train leaders—they assumed I would put the emphasis on the sylable.

This is huge spiritual warfare issue.  Most pastors have  heard people express a willingness to lead good lives, and let their neighbors see the gospel of the kingdom through their good deeds.   But we know they rarely speak the WORD.  No one ever entered the kingdom of heaven without embracing the WORD.  The WORD is transformational—the light we are not to hide under a bushel basket.  People are born again, only when the WORD enters their heart like a sperm entering an ovum that brings new life—re-generation.    People need to hear the WORD before they can follow Jesus.

But WORDs without DEEDs are dead.  The works:  the love for people in poverty must follow our WORDs, our church planting, our disciple making and our equipping of leaders  must be integrated with works of kindness and mercy.

One of the Guiding Principles for restructuring our ministries must be (as it was for the Apostles), the PRIORITY OF PREACHING THE GOSPEL (and the requisite church planting, disciple making, and leadership development).   80-90% of our efforts, and resources must be placed in this basket, if we are truly living under the authority of Jesus and bringing the gospel of His kingdom into the world.

______

Whence Lou’s concern, and a desire to integrate Word and Deed under one agency.    Here I’m guessing

 As a missionary in Nigeria, did he  always have the full forces of CRWRC resources available to him and the churches he was nurturing?  in a way that brought those resources to bear on his and other CRC missionaries work?   Did CRWRC staff  find that working with other partners in their mission field more productive (and easier), than working only with CRWM staff?  

It is also true that CRWRC has been more effective in raising funds from the CRCNA community than has CRWM.   Has their leadership was more visionary, more PR capable, or tech savvy?  Or is it that church planting, and preaching the gospel has less panache  than buying a goat for the poor African family?    CRWRC has been able to attract more gifted college grads who want to do development work.   They have been able to articulate the need for our resources more effectively.  As result DEED ministry supercedes the  WORD ministry in the hearts of God’s people. 

A wise missionary once told me that there four changes that you can bring to a mission field:

1)      Immediate aid—(for hunger and health needs)

2)      Developmental aid—(teach a man to fish and….)

3)      Address structural evil (rule of law, corruption and basic economic transformation)

4)      Heart Change (the gospel, disciplemaking, church planting, equipping leaders)

He went on to say that if you are successful in bringing change in first 3 areas but neglect the 4th the other changes will decay.  If you only address #4, the others will follow from the hearts and lives of the new believers.

So:

Guiding Principle #1:  The priority bringing the WORD to a lost world, Helping people see and hear Jesus---Church planting, Disciple making, leadership development. (everything else will flow out of a transformed community of believers, whom we can assist with our resources)

Guiding Principle #2: The integration of DEED ministry through and with our Partners.  All of our resources should flow in conjunction with the WORD ministries of our partners.

Guiding Principle #3: Our organizational structure should be shaped for Effectiveness with our Partners  (more on effectiveness in another post)

John Zylstra, you are right when you say that the unity must be in spirit and in truth that transcends structural, procedural, political,  and functional barriers and differences.  I would suggest however that because it transcends those things it also impinges upon them.  The unity that Jeus and Paul call us to is more than a metaphysical unity, and more than just good fellowship with Christian brothers, but it is also a functional unity--a contending as one man for the sake of the gospel unity.

In Ephesians4:11-16 Paul tells us that Jesus gave gifts to men "apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers for equiping the saints---the Greek word in the text katartismon here has to do with bringing structure to the oikodoman the house of the body of Christ.   These leaders are called to work together to structure the body in an area (not just in one congregation or one denomination) towards unity---when they do the whole body grows toward maturity.  When it does grow in maturity  and a deeper knowledge of Christ--the body also grows in number---the world begins to know.  It was this unity in the body that caused the Ephesian church to be so effective---the Gospel rang out everywhere--and the whole Roman world was transformed.

The type of unity we often focus on is orgnizational or institutional unity.  I do not believe that this is the type of unity that Jesus was praying for.   Often when two institutions merge, there is subtraction and not addition or multiplication of fruit.  Less instead of more.  There seems to be a reduction in the pursuit of truth and a mariginalization of values, and also a numerical reduction of leadership, and a loss of clarity regarding mission. 

The type of unity that Jesus prayed for includes fellowship with each other, but more importantly a common, significant, enduring commitment to find ways to collaborate in the mission of the church.   The goal here is focused on bringing lost people into the kingdom.  The unity is regional, or focused on reaching a city.  When this type of unity is pursued there is addition, and mulitplication.  

I have seen the fruit of the second type of unity efforts in Anchorage Alaska, and in Ethiopia to great effect and fruit