EMQ » April–June 2020 » Volume 56 Issue 2
By Steven Van Zanen
Mission agencies exist to assist churches in fulfilling their global mission mandate. To serve them well requires that agencies know what congregations want and need from the agencies. This article will describe then contrast two Doctor of Ministry major projects that explored this topic, and then it will conclude with observations and recommendations.
The Two Projects Described
The major projects used were Helping Evangelical Baptist Missions Serve Churches in Global Ministry (2007) by Don Whipple, DMin, and Local Churches in Global Missions: Developing a Strategic Plan to Help Christian Reformed Churches to Engage in International Missions (2014)by Steven J. Van Zanen, DMin. In both projects, an agency board member and an agency office staff member gained input on this question from a set of congregations that their agencies were trying to serve. The major projects then addressed the ways in which the two mission agencies could respond to the priorities of congregations in how they go about international missions. The two studies used different methodologies and focused on congregations in different theological traditions. Attending to their similarities and differences could lead to additional fruitful study of what churches may want and need to advance their work of international mission.
Both projects responded to trends observed in the way that local congregations[i] engage in missions. A generation or two ago most American Protestants had a relatively clear idea of what was meant by the term missions, and what the role of their congregation was in that endeavor. Missions meant the selecting and sending of missionaries who would serve overseas, preferably for the rest of their working lives, in communicating the Gospel in a land where most of the people were nominal or non-Christians. They might do this in quite a number of ways. Bible translation, literacy work, education, medical work, agricultural improvement, evangelism, and church planting were all part of the program. The role of the congregation was understood to include prayer, funding, and the provision of personnel who would carry on the work. A successful congregational missions program was measured in terms of increases in each of these three categories.
The trust that “First Baptist” had to place in their missionaries in 1950 was not much different from the trust that the Antioch congregation had to place in the Pauline band in AD 50. The missionary band, monastic order, and mission society were empowered to conduct mission work using their expertise. Communication was difficult. Visits by church members or even supervisory personnel were infrequent. Reports were irregular. Congregations were compelled to place their confidence in agencies or missionaries and could not get deeply involved in mission affairs. By 2000, the situation was radically different. Technological advances opened connection to missionaries and international communities at the click of a mouse. Increased disposable income and ease of transportation allowed visits by congregational members on a regular basis. The idea that mission required expertise in language and culture was not always embraced. Currently many congregations struggle to know their role in missions or even what mission is and how international mission activity relates to congregational ministry. It is the conviction of the writer that congregational engagement in mission is essential to congregational health and vitality. As Pope John Paul II writes, “Missionary activity renews the Church, revitalizes faith and Christian identity, and offers fresh enthusiasm and new incentive. Faith is strengthened when it is given to others!”[ii]
These technological changes, along with the decline in denominational connection, are leading many congregations to more active involvement in international missions. Some congregations with worship attendance of more than two thousand are now acting as their own mission agency – employing and sending long-term missionaries directly.[iii] Much smaller congregations are bypassing agencies when sending short-term teams. It is still true that “Most local congregations simply do not have the resources, personnel, experience or infrastructure needed to train, send, support and supervise foreign missionaries on their own.”[iv] However, even moderate sized congregations are moving in the direction of direct action.
Short-term mission experiences have exploded in recent years. Robert Priest’s survey of mega churches shows that 94 percent organize international mission trips[v] and 85 percent have church to church partnerships.[vi] Over time these trends are likely to include increasing numbers of smaller congregations. Ralph Winter’s argument that function predominates and form must follow[vii] pushes us in the same direction as Bruce Camp’s argument that the congregations must be seen as the primary agent of God’s mission.[viii] The implication, according to Whipple is that regardless of one’s theological orientation regarding the role of congregations and agencies, “Helping churches do missions better should be the stated mission of every agency.”[ix]
Statements about what churches want in missions are almost always true of some congregations, but not all. Congregations are extremely diverse. Even within one denomination, demographic or geographic area, the dissimilarities are every bit as notable as the similarities. Typically, when broad statements are made, the speaker is trying to say that all or most churches are like his or her church in their perspectives. Usually there is some anecdotal evidence to support the claim. As a result, these statements can be persuasive without representing the whole truth.
Both the Whipple project and the Van Zanen project addressed the question of how a mission agency can respond to congregational needs and priorities so as to serve the them in preparation for developing a plan to address them. The two major projects include a number of important differences in what subset of congregations was engaged, how information was gathered and processed, the researcher’s role and conviction about the place of the congregation in mission, as well as what plans resulted from the study. Whipple looked at independent Baptist congregations and specifically in relationship with Evangelical Baptist Missions. He gathered information from five selected congregations using the Nominal Group technique[x] to assess the priorities of the congregations’ mission committees. Van Zanen conducted a survey of a sample of congregations in the Christian Reformed Church in North America. The Delphi Method[xi] enabled him to gather information from 49 of the 60 pastors chosen at random, then a group of six pastors helped interpret the data. Both studies produced a plan of action for the mission agency based on the input gained.
The Two Projects Contrasted
The Nominal Group Technique which Whipple used, tended to balance participation and influence of individuals while producing both quality and quantity ideas. An environment of partnership and satisfaction is created as both agency and church participate together in a problem identification and solving process.[xii] A list of all the challenges identified was developed by giving five points to the top-most challenge going down to one point for the fifth challenge. The top challenges identified by these five congregations’ focus groups in order of significance were:
- Developing accountability with missionaries
- Mobilizing and involving the congregation
- Developing a strategic, proactive approach
- Qualifying and developing potential missionaries
- Training for mission committees.[xiii]
The Delphi Method, used in the Van Zanen study, worked through a series of surveys to understand the most common perspectives within a particular group of people; in this case, pastors of Christian Reformed congregations. Van Zanen’s random sample survey process revealed that Christian Reformed Church pastors believe their congregations need:
- Communication from missionaries
- Connection to them
- Improved relationships between their churches and communities overseas
- Learning and doing opportunities
- Help in connecting global and local mission.[xiv]
The core response which Whipple suggested, and the leadership of Evangelical Baptist Missions embraced was the idea of beginning a new division of the agency focused on resourcing churches for mission, particularly in the area of Consulting and Mentoring.
C&M will have the flexibility of meeting both short-term and long-term needs of the church by offering at least three levels of involvement. One, at the very least, there will be tools available through the web for self-study and evaluation that can begin a church down the road of more effective ministry. Two, at a mid-level involvement, there would be weekend consultations with trained leaders, provided by EBM that would help a church take their next steps in global ministry and impact. Three, a more long-term program of coaching would also be available that would allow for a consultant, or consultant team, to coach a church over a period of 12–18 months toward more strategic ministry.[xv]
Whipple also suggested linking to existing ministries that could augment anything that EBM could not do on its own. Following is the list of five of the ten agencies that Whipple identified, plus one that began in the years since he completed his work: Antioch Network, davidmays.org, Dual Reach, Reach Global, Sixteen:Fifteen and Catalyst Services. Each of these organizations provides resources, training and/or coaching with the goal of serving congregations in their ministry of global mission.
Final Observations and Recommendations
The plan which Van Zanen developed for Christian Reformed World Missions had many specific items to add to the work of that agency. It anticipated more and better electronic communication especially from missionaries as opposed to the agency. This would require agency personnel to support missionaries in becoming more digitally literate, using social media and video, etc. Deepening relationships between congregations and missionaries would require limiting the continual increase in the number of partner congregations with which each missionary must connect and increasing contact with congregations beyond a Sunday morning visit.
Deeper relationships would require ensuring meetings with mission committees, pastors and others within the congregation. Church to church relationship opportunities could be enhanced by helping congregations learn how to help without hurting, emphasizing reciprocity and avoiding dependence. Congregations can be assisted in a move from one-off short-term mission trips to seeing short-term travel as part of a long-term relationship with an international congregation or community. This means prioritizing pastors as travelers to and from the international community. Opportunities to learn and opportunities to serve should be more clearly highlighted. Missionary home service or home assignment visits should include interactions with supporting congregations that help them engage in local outreach (especially cross-cultural outreach).
Both of these projects represent a much-needed move by mission agencies to get a better understanding of the congregations with which they are attempting to connect and serve. Congregational priorities are varied and rapidly changing. They differ by the size, setting, age and makeup of the congregation as well as by theological tradition and experience with missions and missionaries. Agencies need to get better acquainted with those congregations which their agency attempts to serve. Both focus groups, using the Nominal Group Technique and surveys using the Delphi Method, offer promise for deeper knowledge of what congregations and their leaders are currently like. Such knowledge will be vital for effective decision-making.
Summary
This article considered what two mission agencies have done to get a better handle on what congregational priorities are. The two groups of congregations addressed have significantly different priorities. One important avenue of further study would be to use the Nominal Group Technique or the Delphi Method to get at the priorities and interests of congregations in other denominations and traditions. Of course, these approaches don’t address the issue of mission from the perspective of those communities that receive mission personnel from elsewhere. Those perspectives might well push in significantly different directions.
Rev. Steven J. Van Zanen, DMin, serves as Europe Regional Leader
for Resonate Global Mission and Theology Department Chair at LCC International
University. He has previously served as a mission agency leader, a field
missionary in Romania, pastor of a congregation in Minnesota and InterVarsity
campus staff member. He and his wife live in Klaipeda, Lithuania, where they
enjoy connecting with students from fifty-three countries.
[i] Because of the variety of understandings of the word “church” I will use congregation to refer to a local church.
[ii] John Paul II, Redemptoris missio (The Mission of the Redeemer), encyclical letter, Vatican website, December 7, 1990. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio_en.html.
[iii] Robert J. Priest, Douglas Wilson, and Adelle Johnson, “U.S. Megachurches and New Patterns of Global Mission,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 34, no. 2 (2010): 100.
[iv] Craig Ott, Timothy C. Tennant, and Stephen J. Strauss, Encountering Theology of Mission: Biblical Foundations, Historical Developments, and Contemporary Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010), 214.
[v] Priest, Wilson, and Johnson, “U.S. Megachurches,” 98.
[vi] Priest, Wilson, and Johnson, “U.S. Megachurches,” 100.
[vii] Ralph D. Winter, “The Two Structures of God’s Redemptive Mission,” Missiology 2, no. 1 (1974): 121–39.
[viii] Bruce K. Camp, “A Theological Examination of the Two-Structure Theory,” Missiology 23, no. 2 (1995), 197–209.
[ix] Don Whipple, “Helping Evangelical Baptist Missions Serve Churches in Global Ministry” (DMin major project, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2007), 4.
[x] Randall Dunham, “Nominal Group Technique: A Users Guide,” Organizational Behavior, University of Wisconsin School of Business, 1998, http://instruction.bus.wisc.edu/obdemo/readings/ngt.html.
[xi] Harold Linstone and Murray Turoff, The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications (Glenview, IL: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, 1975), digital scan, accessed September 19, 2013, s.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf.
[xii] Whipple, “Helping Evangelical,” 44.
[xiii] Whipple, “Helping Evangelical,” 50–51.
[xiv] Steven J. Van Zanen, “Local Churches in Global Missions: Developing a Strategic Plan to Help Christian Reformed Churches to Engage in International Missions” (DMin major project, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2014), iv.
[xv] Whipple, “Helping Evangelical,” 99.
