September 28, 2003
A Growing Idea
When we get to Brazil, I am looking forward to the prospect of planting a church in the coastal city of São Luis. With this in mind, I have been doing alot of thinking about church planting recently, and some questions have been formenting in my mind.
Is the way we do church planting today the most effective way?
Do we have any long-range goals other than the simple establishment of a local church with a national pastor?
What is the best use of American funds for church-planting works?
To what extent does the modern church-planting movement seek to impose American culture onto foreign Christianity?
To what extent are missionary-planted churches seen as "American" to foreign nationals outside the church?
Church planting today (at least in the circles in which I travel) follows a set pattern:
1. Missionary goes to unreached area.
2. Missionary wins converts.
3. Missionary uses American money to build a church building.
4. Missionary brings in a national pastor.
5. Missionary leaves national pastor in charge.
I see some inherent problems with this model.
1. When the missionary goes to an unreached area, the message he preaches is automatically identified with his (the missionary's) culture. People of a foreign culture will have difficulty identifying with the Gospel for this reason. A national missionary would have much more acceptance.
2. The converts won by an American missionary are often converts to the American culture. I have seen many instances when an American missionary has left, and the "converts" have left as well.
3. Using American funds to build national churches establishes a bad precident. It is easy for the nationals to begin to trust the Americans for resources, not God. This is very dangerous ground.
4. One of the most difficult transitions in the life of a national church is the "transfer of power" from a missionary to a national pastor. It seems to me that a national pastor right at the outset would be the better part of wisdom.
5. When the missionary leaves to start a new church, he often takes his money with him. He also takes his culture, which has been the basis for the opperation of the church from day one. Now the church is left with a national pastor with no money and a completely different way of doing things.
Based on these observations, I would like to suggest the following model:
1. Missionary and national pastor go to the unreached area together. It is made clear that the national worker is the pastor of the church. He will be supported by national churches in existence, and perhaps by some American churches.
2. Converts are discipled by the national pastor. The American missionary helps in the areas of planning, outreach, and training.
3. American funds are used sparingly. Every effort is made to insure that the congregation assumes full responsibility for buildings and other material assets, and that the national church is not indebted to or dependant on the missionary or the mission board.
4. The national pastor is there from day one, so there is no "culture shock" when he moves on and another national pastor takes his place.
5. When the American missionary moves on, the church is in no way dependent on American money, nor subservient to the American way of doing things.
I am in no way trying to belittle those who have invested their lives in the first model. I am sure the model I have just presented needs work. These are just some thoughts going through my head recently. They will most certainly evolve into definite plans as time goes by.
I would love to hear feedback from anybody who reads this article.
Posted by Andrew on September 28, 2003 2:24 PM.
Comments
Posted by: k3 at September 30, 2003 5:10 PM
Subscribe via
This sounds plausible, but I'm not sure of one statement: "A national missionary would have much more acceptance."
I'm no veteran missionary but it is true (at least in this part of Africa) that as an outsider to a culture, you have more potential for an audience. Of course the audience isn't always there for the right reason. However, sometimes people are less likely to listen to people of their own culture.
Preservation of culture is something the American must be involved in, national pastor or not. If the American isn't willing to adopt as much as possible the parts of culture that are not ungodly, then at best he will win converted Americans. If the missionary becomes part of the culture - or at least makes strides to that end that are visible and meaningful to the people he works amongst - he has both benefits. He gathers an audience for being an outsider willing to come into their culture. And as someone who loves their culture and respects them for it, they ought not be converted to Americanism, but the message can be all the more personal to them (if it is in their own tongue, for example).
Otherwise, we may as well support only national pastors, and us Americans can stay home. This is increasingly done, but there is much Americans can do for good around the world if they leave their arrogance behind.