Section

Reports from around the world.

When one sets out to write about church growth from the perspective of the four Gospels, he discovers himself confronted by a discomfiting fact: the Gospels have nothing specific to say about church growth.

The cooling off of the church in regard to missions is apparent to observers both within and without.

At the InterVarsity Urbana 70 missionary conference, George Taylor chided missions because “very, very few” black Christians are represented on mission fields.

The objective of the Great Commission is thoughtfully analyzed, with narrow and broad definitions. The author holds that disciples in the New Testament sense are simply people won to Christ.

As pointed out in my preceding article on this subject, the unreflective missionary may easily find himself assigned by the people to whom he goes to a role and status that is quite damaging to the task of communicating Christ crossculturally.

Is “going native” the answer to the missionary’s quest for identification? David Hesselgrave shows that this is a superficial, and not completely biblical, solution to the problem of identification.

American Christianity has long been identified with an institutionalized and democratic church structure. What happens when such institutions are superimposed upon a quasi-Western cultural mold operating in a basically oriental society?

If you are shocked by the opening sentence of the article below, then read on, because many of us without realizing it have offended nationals to the point of no return.

The history of missions has seen many changes – in the culture of those ministered to, the strategy of missions, the methods and techniques of communication of the gospel. The one factor that has remained constant in all of this, however, is the message: salvation as by faith in Jesus Christ.