| What is the shortest distance between A and Z? A straight line, right? Therefore, in our ever-changing world, the process of getting through the clutter of information to make sound decisions, build effective strategies, and actually impact the unreached world with the Gospel is taking new form. In earlier eras evangelism was carried out free form by individual evangelists who went "as the Spirit led," and there was great initial success. But, as the centuries rolled on, great barriers were erected to the Gospel?restrictive governments, persecution, opposing religions and the like. These obstacles required huge resources to surmount. Without resources or know-how to overcome these obstacles, evangelists took their cue from global corporations and organized large denominational and para-church ministries with the power to recruit the resources necessary, including money, personnel, diplomacy, and emergency mobilization. Individual evangelists joined these organizations and relied on their leaders to direct them to the best place to work. The "chiefs" (denominational leaders, mission executives, mega-organization CEO's, etc.) became the most effective ones to lead. Individual evangelists could accomplish some good, but only the "chiefs" had the knowledge base, the resources, and the experience to plan the large initiatives necessary to do the job and especially to penetrate restricted access nations. Since the 1970s, the positive influence of this mission organizational model has achieved phenomenal results. Though each model has been effective during the era for which it was designed, corporate driven missions has been fueled and, at times, hampered by the necessity of honoring the desires of their respective constituencies over the priority of world evangelization. Some organizations have maintained their commitment to world evangelization by tirelessly motivating and mobilizing their constituency with renewed vision for the unreached. The positive result of such persuasive power has been the ability of Wycliffe, Gospel Recordings, The JESUS Film Project, and others to provide effective tools in hundreds of new languages for the first time. Others, perhaps more confined to meeting the obligation of their constituencies (some denominations, for instance), continue to direct resources where a large number of similar resources already exist. The negative impact of this strategy is self evident and common?missionaries "tripping" over each other, overlapping evangelistic initiatives in "responsive" fields with little resources remaining for the final frontiers. NEW STRUCTURES However, the usefulness of each of these models of itinerant evangelism and corporate structure is changing. Today, the world has grown so complex, with hundreds of countries, thousands of cities, and tens of thousands of people groups, all inter-relating in a complex maze of culture, religion and language, that the corporate headquarters can't know nor effectively direct everything. Now, it is the mission worker who (along with others in his network) must become knowledgeable in his niche?the city or people group he has targeted?and must be able to advise the corporate headquarters on an evangelistic strategy that also incorporates a network of other organizations. Does this mean, then, that the missionary agency/corporate headquarters with its role in casting vision for world evangelization should be abandoned? Not at all. Without this vital role Christians would be tempted to lessen their commitment to the Great Commission. However, the old paradigm is giving way to new and changing roles. In every area of global life?from the secular to religious? the "straight line" process (sparked by new technologies in communications and information) has caused a shift in the relationship between the corporate headquarters and the field. While the missionary remains the servant of his people group, the corporate headquarters, in effect, is becoming the servant of the missionary. The AD2000 Movement has helped to foster this new paradigm in missions by catalyzing the Christians (not just the professional missions industry) toward the unreached people of the 10/40 Window. It is now a fairly common experience for a church to "adopt" a people group or send their own teams and students to become active mobilizing on behalf of an unreached people, and even for prospective career missionaries to approach various agencies with a pre-selected field (people group) of interest. DIRECTIVE OWNERSHIP As churches, students, business persons, health care professionals and other individuals catch the vision for the Gospel for Every Person and the Church for Every People, they also desire directive ownership in that vision. I can still remember an intense conversation in 1992 between a friend and his missions executive. In the process of field assignment, the executive's initial question, "Are you committed to the XYZ missions organization or not?" led to finding ways to serve both the vision of the agency and the mission. My friend's initial concerns were not a matter of institutional allegiance, but they were centered on a call to minister among a people group and not serve wherever the agency might want to send his family. The resolution was found by each party recognizing their need for ownership in the vision by mutually affirming the calls of both the individual and the missions agency. A good example is my friend Victor (who lives in New Delhi, India) who has established a core advisory team for his church planting effort. He looks to key individuals in the United States and Singapore and his organizational leaders in Mumbai (formerly Bombay) for assistance in building the strategy God has given him for New Delhi. He is not an associate or appointed national leader of a North American or European mission organization, nor is he an employee implementing someone else's vision. These, of course, are not negatives but they do represent a different mind-set. God chose Victor to impact the unreached in New Delhi, and Victor's "straight line" detours past marching orders from those he does not know, a place to work, or a monthly stipend?God has birthed a vision in his heart. What Victor needs is to draw a "straight line" connecting his vision with the accountability and resources necessary to see it accomplished. No doubt your "straight line" is changing, too. Mine has. In 1990, my wife and I were privileged to go through a training offered by the Southern Baptist International Mission Board. At the heart of this personal re-orientation to missions was the concept of facilitating other organizations and individuals to work among unreached people where God was about to work (Luke 10:1-3). We committed at that time to focus our ministry in Central Asia and to also help others serve as Strategy Coordinators/Facilitators. Soon afterwards, I began helping people re-draw their "straight lines" to build effective mission strategies linking vision with resources (knowledge, finance, personnel) in North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, the Persian Gulf, the Indian Subcontinent, China and Southeast Asia. We have grown together, striving for both an orthodoxy (valid core beliefs) and a flexible orthopraxy (Scriptural valid practices) for mission and church planting. THE BIG CHANGE
|
