EMQ » April–June 2019 » Volume 55 Issue 2
By Rob “Mags” Magwood
Here in Canada we often drive in tough winter conditions. For years I drove on all-season tires, believing that special snow tires couldn’t make that much difference. When encouraged again by a trusted friend to give them a try, I finally relented and installed “winters” on one of our cars.
I was amazed at the difference this investment made. The short-term impact on our family budget and headache of storing the summer tires was well worth it. Better grip for starting and stopping, better control in new-fallen snow, better traction on unexpected ice–driving confidence and the safety of our family was dramatically lifted by improved traction.
In challenging conditions, many of us in Canada are faithfully striving to mobilize new workers for global mission initiatives. Some of us have been at it for a long time, but admittedly our efforts aren’t always leading to the outcomes we desire. My encouragement to you (both Canadian readers and others) is to invest some short-term energy into processing this research that’s already been conducted, compiled and analyzed by a trustworthy source. The probable outcome for us? Improved traction.
An Introduction to the Study
The Canadian Evangelical Missions Engagement Study (CEMES) research (approximately 200 pages, published 2017) was conducted among Canadian evangelicals by Rick Hiemstra and his team at The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC). The process included both personal interviews and surveys to compile and collate over 3,400 responses from pastors and lay-people across the country. Demographic information is included to understand how generations may think differently on various elements.
The result is a very helpful snapshot of how the evangelical church in Canada is thinking about and engaging in missions. For those of us seeking to mobilize God’s people to see disciples made among all the nations (Matthew 24:14; Mark 16:14), the opportunity before us is like putting snow tires on my car—improved traction to get where we’re going.
The CEMES research has been presented in four reports, all of which are available online.[1] These documents provide engaging commentary including numerous direct quotes from the interviews and preliminary conclusions.
What remains for us is a pressing question: “Now what?” How will we use this data? My proposal is to make an investment—to spend some time and effort together to better understand and apply this learning in order to more effectively help local churches identify, prepare and support thriving message bearers.
Rather than re-iterate the report, I’ve selected a few representative points from each report and then proposed probing questions with a recommended resource. Together this is intended to catalyze deeper reflection leading to intentional goals, evaluation of outcomes, and adjustments. I hope my approach might lead readers to (1) further engage the CEMES reports themselves, and (2) reach out to like-minded churches, agencies and schools to engage collaborative dialogues and initiatives. May the resulting conversations emerge in our pastors’ studies, on Missions Committees’ agendas, and on our agencies’ priority lists!
Report One: Canadian Evangelicals and Short-Term Mission
Who is participating in short-term missions, to do what, and for what duration? Responses indicate that many pastors (67%) have participated in short-term trips in the last decade, usually for two weeks or less. Lay people (22%) also reported participating in such a trip; usually less than two weeks. Most of these trips are to ministry locations outside Canada (80%) but there was a sentiment that this should be “rebalanced” back to Canada. The most common tasks during these trips included building construction and repair, vacation Bible schools, evangelism and discipleship, encouraging missionaries, and working with orphans.
Why do they go? At the core of this conversation is motivation. The clear majority of pastors (75%) agreed that short-term mission is an important form of discipleship for their local congregation. Most respondents agreed that spiritual growth of team members was the primary purpose of these trips. Two-thirds of pastors agreed that short-term mission should be made available to non-Christians who have skills and abilities to contribute.
Probing questions toward improved traction
- How are we ensuring that our pastors are able to participate in short-term mission? What decisions are needed to provide time and space for our key leaders to participate personally?
- How is short-term mission expected to contribute to the ongoing, long-term spiritual growth of those who participate? How are we integrating short-term mission into the ongoing discipleship program of the church? What resources are needed before, during, and after the short-term mission?
- There is a tremendous participation on the part of youth, for which we thank the Lord! How are we providing opportunities for student (youth) short-term missions to participate locally (or nearby) in missions prior to distant initiatives? Are we encouraging students to consider subsequent longer-terms, rather than multiple short-term missions?
- If non-Christians are invited to participate in short-term mission, how are we intentionally presenting gospel truth through their experience?
Recommended Resource: Standards of Excellence in Short-Term Missions, https://soe.org.
Report Two: Canadian Evangelicals and Long-term, Career Missions: Calling, Sending, and Training
This report observes that there is no broad consensus on certain key terminology, including what is meant by/included in mission or missions. It is also observed that there are various descriptions of short-term and long-term service. Many pastors (65%) agreed that long-term service means six years or longer, while only 33% of lay people held that same description, and 36% of lay people described long-term service as 1–5 years. Sixty-seven percent of lay people and 90% of pastors agree that “the local church should challenge its young people to consider long-term service.”[2]
In interviews, however, informants were “generally reluctant to encourage family members into long-term service, but would also reluctantly accept their family member’s long-term call if they were convinced it was the Lord doing the calling.”[3] How does one discern a call to missions? Ninety percent of pastors and 63% of lay people agreed that the local church is critical discerning an individual’s call to long-term service.
The call to serve is being heard in some local churches. One hopeful response from a denominational leader cited in the research is worth sharing:
I think we do a lot of babysitting. Keep young people from the bad places. I don’t think we’re challenging. I was in a church about two years ago. The church was about 400 some. … They have a missions weekend every year. … And Friday night I began my series which went until Sunday. Friday night I don’t usually give an altar call
[for commitments to pursue missions], but the Lord prompted me, and I knew I had to obey. So finally I said, “If God is speaking to anyone, please come forward. 31 came down. Thirty-one! I was shocked! I expected one or two. At the end, by Sunday, we had 54 people respond to full-time ministry. Fifty-four![4]
An important tension emerged in the research: should we even send missionaries? Nine percent of lay evangelicals agreed that long-term workers do more harm than good, and another 14% indicated they weren’t sure. Forty percent of pastors and 29% of lay people agreed that “it is better to send money to indigenous workers than to send long-term workers from Canada.” There was, however, no broad support among lay respondents for the idea that the presence of peoples from around the world (in Canada) removes the need to send long-term workers abroad.
On the sending of long-term workers, 37% of churches have sent out a long-term worker (not necessarily for the first time) in the last decade. Eighty-five percent of pastors agree that the local church has the primary responsibility for the Great Commission, of which 76% also agree that agencies or denominations are better equipped to care for and supervise mission personnel. Among the laity, 61% of older respondents (Silent Generation) believed agencies are better equipped than local churches, while just 43% of younger respondents (Generation Y) held that view. Thirty-five percent of lay respondents indicated we should not send long-term workers into dangerous situations, compared to 16% of pastors. Finally, 68% of pastors indicated their church would consider sending professionals or business owners to live abroad intentionally as a mission worker.
Probing questions toward improved traction
- How are we helping with clarifying language regarding missions? How are we helping discern what constitutes short- and long-term service? How can we clarify what might be called medium-term service?
- Which resources and support are we providing to local churches as they identify potential workers and discern the call of God? How are we encouraging healthy dialogue between individuals “independently interested” and their local churches?
- How do we come alongside families (parents and grand-parents) as their loved ones consider the call of God, and as they depart to serve in distant places? How are we informing and encouraging local churches to care for these Senders?
- How are we clearly challenging local churches (and especially young people) to consider God’s call to long-term service? How are we complementing the efforts of local churches to make the remaining task clear? How are we stimulating courageous and creative thinking for professionals or business people who might serve with mission purpose?
- How are we communicating the viability of long-term service into unreached and difficult/dangerous places? How are we seeking to ensure that with are helping without hurting?
Recommended Resource: Ryan Shaw, Spiritual Equipping for Mission: Thriving as God’s Message Bearers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014).
Report Three: Canadian Evangelicals and Mission Priorities
This section of the research looks at local church budgets and spending as well as influences and factors in making decisions about financial support and strategic direction. Pastors report that churches spend 13.5% of their budgets on missions, and 80% of churches support long-term workers (i.e., missionaries). Forty-one percent of lay people indicate that they personally support a long-term worker. Older evangelicals (51%) are more likely to personally support long-term workers than are Generation Y evangelicals (32%). Deliberative bodies (missions committees, church boards, or congregations at annual meetings) are most influential for missions funding decisions, and a clear majority of all supporters seek assurance that administrative fees collected by agencies lead to greater effectiveness.
According to pastors, their church’s top three mission priorities were (1) missions to the unreached, (2) poverty relief, and (3) working with national churches. Although unreached was the top priority, evangelism among Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists was ranked as low priority—a tension in the report which warrants exploration. Another curious indicator was the low priority of Bible translation, considering that one of the defining marks of evangelicalism is the priority of the Word.
Probing questions toward improved traction
- If pastors are knowingly (or unknowingly!) bearing the role of the primary missions mobilizer in their church, what tools and supports do we offer to make their job easier? Where can pastors quickly locate trustworthy resources to align their own hearts, and then the hearts of their congregants, with the mission heart of God?
- How are we equipping decision-makers with strategic information (big picture factors) on which to base their decisions? How are we developing trusted avenues of communication with those influencers?
- How are we informing church congregations about unreached people groups, including Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists? How are we encouraging reconsideration of the current imbalance in financial support to reached areas vs. unreached people groups? Most of mission activity and financial support (99.7%) are directed toward where the church already is, with only 0.3% of resources are allocated to where the church is not.[5]
- How are we informing churches about the need for God’s Word in appropriate formats? “God’s Word is so much more powerful than anything people can say; it is a mighty lion that needs to be unleashed. Let us pray for the Word of God (in written, oral, musical and dramatic forms) to be translated and rise among the unreached.”[6] (Isaiah 55:10–11)
Recommended Resource: Zach Bradley, The Sending Church Defined (Knoxville: The Upstream Collective, 2015).
Report Four: Canadian Evangelicals and Missions Promotion in the Local Church
In our noisy world, it is very difficult to earn and maintain attention. Hiemstra correctly observes that “Attention is the currency of our age. The fragmentation of attention in contemporary life leaves little capacity for deep and sustained engagement with any one ministry or mission.”[7]
The research clearly supports something many of us have observed: the lead (senior, etc.) pastor of a church is “the indispensable voice in leading a congregation to engage with missions.”[8] The data also clearly underscores the strategic nature of platform time—initiatives referenced in the pulpit benefit from more attention and support from the congregation. Many evangelical churches no longer hold regular Sunday evening services or mid-week meetings (often replaced by some sort of small group gatherings) which means it is challenging to allocate (or earn) platform time for missions. This is true even for missionaries reporting to their sending churches (Acts 14:26–28) let alone newcomers.
Churches clearly expressed concerns about the quality of missions presentations. This is consistent with my own experience—one venue declined a presentation saying, “Mission presentation are so boring!” While daunting for the average presenter, workers and agencies must wrestle nevertheless with the expectations and capacities of contemporary church congregations.
Some critical challenges were uncovered by considering perspectives on prayer: both pastors and lay-people frequently indicated they did not pray for missions unless they were prompted or reminded. “Very few of the respondents talked about planned or regular prayed for missions that was not a response to external prompting.”[9] While this is perhaps not surprising in our busy world, we must strive to cultivate faithful prayer for both mobilization and workers serving (2 Corinthians 1:11).
While indicating the need for accountability and regular updates, the research indicates a paradoxical tension between “(1) the demand for information and (2) the common complaint that there is too much information to absorb.”[10] Those of us in the missions world need to continually experiment and evaluate, as there is evidently no single correct answer to this communications challenge.
Seventy-four percent of pastors “agreed that their churches actively foster conversations about the biblical basis for their missions engagement.”[11] Further, about one quarter of churches indicated that they either held (or helped organize) a missions conference in the previous year. Fifty-five percent of pastors said that their missions program included an ongoing component focused outside of Canada.
Probing questions toward improved traction
- Which alternative means of communication with God’s people (other than platform time) are being used? How are we testing/cultivating these avenues?
- How are we ensuring quality control of our missions presentations? Are missions committees and agencies/workers reporting taking this seriously? How are we supporting that returning workers (focused primarily on overseas ministries and cultures) who may be ill-equipped to meet the expectations of the congregations they report to?
- How are we working to shape the expectations of the congregations regarding missions presentations? If those expectations are unrealistic, how are we adjusting?
- How are we cultivating regular, faithful prayer for missions? Have we renewed our methods to incorporate new communication tools? How can we provide on-ramps for those who would like to participate but perhaps lack experience/awareness? Are we effectively building a sense of community for those praying?
- Are we helping to develop missions communications plans that are manageable by a particular group (e.g., entire congregation, leadership groups, small groups)? How we evaluating the effectiveness of communication?
Recommended Resource: Paul Seger, Senders: How your church can identify, train and deploy missionaries (CreateSpace, 2015).
Enjoying New Traction
In the long run, I’ve become an advocate of snow tires for Canadian winter driving. The traction is worth the hassle. I’ve also become an advocate for prayerful, collaborative discussion of this helpful research from CEMES. This article is just a sampling, but there is much to learn and pray over. Our investment of time to learn and adjust (both to the clear lessons as well as the not-so-obvious clues to be mined) will be well worth our effort to improve traction for mobilization of the church.
Afterword: Are you interested in further dialogue on this research?
It should be noted again this article engages only select elements from the research which I liken to a treasure drove of current, relevant, organized data! I would welcome further engagement on these and other topics (rmagwood@send.org) as the new Global Missions Toolbox will be diving into this material. Also note that for approved programs of study, the anonymous data set can be made available for further analysis/study. Already one DMin student is using this for a forthcoming dissertation. For more information contact Rick Hiemstra at the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (hiemstrar@theEFC.ca).
Rob “Mags” Magwood serves as the host of the Global Missions Podcast and Canadian Director of SEND International. A current project, The Global Missions Toolbox, is designed to support pastors and missions committees as we together seek to identify, prepare and sustain a new generation of faithful mission workers. Mags and Kathleen first served in church-planting and theological education in Ukraine and Russia, and now live in London, Ontario.
[1] Beth Hiemstra helpfully distilled Executive Summaries found on pages 3–4 of each report. See https://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/Communications/Research/Canadian-Evangelical-Missions-Engagement-Study.
[2] Rick Hiemstra, Canadian Evangelicals and Long-Term, Career Missions: Calling, Sending and Training—Canadian Evangelical Missions Engagement Study Series, Part 2 (Toronto: Faith Today Publications, 2017), 13.
[3] Rick Hiemstra, Canadian Evangelicals, Part 2, 12.
[4] Rick Hiemstra, Canadian Evangelicals, Part 2, 13.
[5] “References for Key Statistics,” The Issachar Initiative, accessed November 19, 2016, http://issacharinitiative.org/references.
[6] Dick Brogden, Live Dead Joy: 365 Days of Living and Dying with Jesus (Salubris Resources, 2014), Kindle Location 130.
[7] Rick Hiemstra, Canadian Evangelicals and Missions Promotion in the Local Church—Canadian Evangelical Missions Engagement Study Series, Part 4 (Toronto: Faith Today Publications, 2017), 8.
[8] Rick Hiemstra, Canadian Evangelicals, Part 4, 11.
[9] Rick Hiemstra, Canadian Evangelicals, Part 4, 16.
[10] Rick Hiemstra, Canadian Evangelicals, Part 4, 19.
[11] Rick Hiemstra, Canadian Evangelicals, Part 4, 27.
