Daniel Kruis

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. 

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)

Wow.  Praise the Lord.  I am humbled by your response.  Yes, prayer is the key---the only place we can come into unity with the Spirit.    

I am assuming this is Whatcom County, WA--or Bellingham--A beautiful place for the spirit of God to move.

First Richard,

The Greek phrase used in Ephesians 4:2 is spoudazonteV threin thn enothta tou

pneumatoV en tw sundesmw thV eirhnhV. The word  “spoudazontes” is an imperative participle used to urge passionate action,  the word  denotes an attitude or orientation toward doing something passionately, eagerly—like boiling pot of water.   So the challenge from Paul to our responsive human souls, is to “eagerly, and passionately  keep or secure the  and also preserve the “bond of peace”.   

While you are  right Richard that we are “one” and that this one-ness is something that is simply true of us as believers, never-the-less we are being challenged to eagerly and passionately secure the entata, the oneness of the spirit and the bond of peace. 

In this case the best way to confess the Belhar confession article 3.  Is to encourage all of our pastors and churches to be engaged in city or region reaching efforts in their neck of the woods.  When we  confess—homologeo­—it is implied that there is a homogeneity between our words, and our actions.  Such a confession should be made by all CRC churches and lived out in their communities.

This pursuit of unity is pro-activity.  Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven advances rapidly when  violent individuals—(read proactive individuals)  pro-actively pursue the kingdom.    Jesus didn’t wait for the kingdom to come to him--he more than anyone was ready to initiate action that would bring His kingdom and his Father’s will into the world. 

(Yes to the Appliachian Dawn question---that is precisely what I am suggesting we CRC pastors and churches passionately pursue. )

Thank you for your response Bev.   Makes me want to take a SELAH  (pause and wonder)

"unless to agree how can they walk together"  "unless  we pray together how can we agree".