Paradigm Shifts in World Evangelization

Paradigm Shifts in World Evangelization

By Bruce K. Camp

Momentum is building in the Christian community to evangelize the world by the year 2000. Some suggest that every person should have the opportunity to hear the gospel by the end of the century. Others believe, at the very least, that we can have a church planting movement under way in every unreached people within this time frame. Regardless of the perspective, many assume that the American church will play a significant role in the evangelization of the world during this decade. But will it?

The world missions paradigm of the local church is changing, and until more congregations recognize the new paradigm and act accordingly, we probably will not be able to evangelize the world during this decade. More specifically, if the American church continues with the attitude of business as usual, it will have lost a window of opportunity to reach every unreached people group prior to the advent of the twenty-first century.

A paradigm is a model, a way that individuals view something, the rules of a game, the way people perceive reality (Barker 1992). Examples of paradigms abound. Some common paradigms in missions circles include: only mission agencies are equipped to send missionaries, missions leadership is male in gender, and missionary candidates must have 30 hours of formal Bible training.

Paradigms are useful to mission strategists, as they help to explain why something is happening as opposed to what is happening. They do not simply describe the new activity, but provide insight into the reason for the change.

Paradigms do change, they are not static The United States military is going through a paradigm shift now that the cold war is over. In other words, its role in the world is being reassessed based on the acknowledgement that the United States is now the only major superpower.

Similarly, the local church is reassessing its role and activities in international missions, given the political changes that are occurring around the globe. While the goal of world evangelization has not changed nor will change, the church’s modus operandi must evolve if it is to play a significant role in starting church planting movements in every unreached people group during this decade. The church must move from a passive to an active role in obeying the Great Commission.

Generally speaking, the local evangelical church in the United States has experienced a major paradigm shift during the last twenty years with regard to understanding its role in obeying the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). More specifically, numerous congregations have conducted their global missions activities based upon two paradigms (supporting and sending). At the risk of making the greatest mistake possible for a trend- spotter, which according to Peter Drucker is to be prematurely right (1992:21), I suggest that currently a third, synergistic, paradigm is emerging.

While not all evangelical churches in the United States have undergone paradigm shifts in their missions thinking, enough have so that observations can be made about the changes.

It is important that the American evangelical church understand those paradigm shifts. Presented in this article is a descriptive analysis and questions to assist both agencies and congregations in thinking through the implications of these shifts.

The major paradigm shift occurring within churches is that they increasingly are called to assume more active responsibility in world missions. In other words, the local church is seen as needing to become a primary participant in the task of global evangelization (Camp 1992). However, within this overall change of philosophy in the role of the local church in world missions, there have been other minor paradigm shifts. This paper will outline

Mobilizer Volume 5, Number 1, Winter 1994the prevailing paradigms through which many churches have evolved. In reality, these paradigms represent a continuum of missions activities. No congregation fits one paradigm entirely. An individual church may utilize selected activities found within each of the three paradigms. For the sake of the illustration, however, the paradigms will be presented as if each one is all-inclusive of a particular church’s activities. Thus, while these paradigms oversimplify reality, they do enable us to make certain observations.

Supporting: First Paradigm

The supporting paradigm is still the predominate paradigm for evangelical churches and can be traced back at least to the 1970s. The role of the local church in world missions is understood largely as supporting. The key word is “they”. The prevailing question is: What is their game plan? In other words, churches look to mission agencies to set the agenda. Whatever the agencies want to do is accepted as correct because they are the experts. Dependence is a descriptive summary word for this model, in regard to how the local church conducts its missions activities through agencies.

From the local church perspective, a number of ideas are used to describe this paradigm, including high loyalty to denominational and nondenominational mission agencies Financial support is given to individuals who may reside outside of the geographical region of the congregation (i.e. in another state). Missionaries travel throughout the country to speak and raise support, rarely staying at one church from one week to the next Missions education is provided by outsiders (generally visiting missionaries) via speakers, slides and missions conferences Financial support for a missionary is assumed for the duration of their career Agencies make most of the decisions

The emphasis during this era is on goers - missionaries who leave the United States to plant churches overseas.. The focus of the supporting church is on money. The church does not have a strategy for aggressive involvement in world missions. And it takes a non-directive stance in regard to its relationship with missionaries Typically, the signs of success for a supporting church are a bigger missions budget and a better missions conference than the prior year.

Churches utilizing this paradigm are mainly dependent upon mission agencies. They trust the agencies to know best, and for the most part, they go along with the agencies’ programs. Prayer support for missionaries is usually limited, since the congregation is often only superficially involved in the life of the missionary. Although some churches still operate under this early model, changes in the supporting paradigm began to occur in the early l980s as local congregations started to think in terms of a more participatory model.

Sending: Second Paradigm

Instead of maintaining merely a supporting role, churches in the 1 980s began to assume also a sending role in world missions. The key word become “my”; for example, “What is my church’s plan?” was a key question. Churches have shifted from a dependent mode to an independent one in their relationship to mission agencies. Congregations utilize the services of mission agencies, but churches are no longer dependent on any one agency. Some churches send their own missionaries directly, thus bypassing the agency. (I am not suggesting that churches should bypass agencies. I view agencies as a gift from God to help local churches fulfill their Great Commission mandate.) Nonetheless, “direct sending of missionaries from local churches is a new trend that will not go away.” And in many cases, this direct sending is a result of congregations wanting to work in areas beyond existing works. In other words, some local churches believe that agencies have become bogged down into working primarily among reached peoples (AD 2000 Global Monitor 1992:2).

Several factors characterize this paradigm shift. The agency to which a church was loyal in the previous decade now becomes one of many. Denominational and/or organizational loyalty is predominantly a notion of the past for churches which have accepted this paradigm. Financial support is regionalized.. No longer are missionaries sent throughout the country to find support partners. Congregations now insist on both quantity and quality time with their financially supported missionaries, If candidates for support cannot spend significant time with a church, then they are not added to the support roster. Churches want relationships with their missionaries beyond mere support they do not care to be merely dispensers of finances.

Missions education changed significantly during this era of the sending paradigm. For example, church members began to speak about missions based on their short-term mission trips If an outsider was brought in, the individual had to be an excellent communicator. Expectations for quality presentations rose dramatically during the time frame of this paradigm The goal of the sending church now is to recruit and train its own people to be missionaries Congregations still work with agencies, but as equal partners If the agency does not accept this new role of the church as a partner, then a church finds an agency that cooperates with the church’s priority of involvement.

In this era, the emphasis is on both goers and senders A sending church mobilizes individuals within its constituency either to go as missionaries or to help those who do go by sending them off with prayer, financial and emotional support. The focus is on people instead of money. The sending church utilizes, primarily, one strategy for world evangelization — the sending of its own people. This strategy is directive, as the church begins to set up requirements for missionary preparation and an accountability structure to the church.

Harry Larson, missions pastor at Emmanuel Faith Community Church in Escondido, California, makes the following contrasts between the supporting church and the sending church.

Supporting Church

1. The focus is on money.

2. The church chooses from among missionaries who have already established their strategy.

3. The focus is on quantity, thus giving a little less money to more missionaries.

4. Church members have little personal involvement with missionaries.

5. The church can claim minimal “ownership” of its missionaries.

Sending Church

1. The focus is on people.

2. The church has more opportunities to establish its own strategy.

3. The focus is on quality.

4. Church members have maximum personal involvement with missionaries.

5. The church can claim its missionaries to be “its own”. (ACMC 1988:9.10)

Positive factors for missionaries that have resulted from congregations which have become sending churches include: a stronger emotional tie with their home church, greater prayer and financial support, and more accountability to the congregation.

Not everyone agrees that a church should take a more active role in world missions. Some interpret this action as churches beginning to act like agencies. Negative factors of churches that do this, according to missions executive Sam Metcalf, include: the potential weeding out of the best candidates who are unwilling to go through the church’s pre-field training program; more strings attached to church support, which causes candidates to go to individuals for donations, thus slowing down the time it takes missionaries to raise support; and, according to Metcalf s view of history, whenever churches begin to exercise control of the missionary enterprise or seek to become an agency, “the missionary effort is eventually impaired and may even die” (1993: 146).

Most churches currently operate in the supporting paradigm. A growing number of influential congregations have transitioned to the sending paradigm. A few congregations are shifting to a third paradigm, the synergistic model, a paradigm which is appearing on the horizon in the 1990s. Larry Walker, a church missions consultant for ACMC, estimates that 90% of the missions-active churches in North America fit the supporting paradigm, 8-9% the sending paradigm, and 1-2% the synergistic paradigm (Personal communication July 5, 1993). The definition of this contemporary paradigm contains the idea of a joint action by agents that, when taken together, increases the effectiveness of both. Thus, the outcome is greater than the sum of their efforts done separately.

Synergistic: Third Paradigm

The key word of this model is “we”. The question a church asks is: “What is our role in obeying the Great Commission?” The synergistic church does not want to replace a vision for world evangelization with programs and projects. They often see the Great Commission as the reason for their existence, not an auxiliary assignment.

Instead of trying to accomplish numerous missions activities, synergistic churches will focus on a few items which they can do well. Strategicness is a cherished value. They continually ask, “Is this a strategic ministry with which we should be involved?” Synergistic congregations are fellowships which combine their efforts with others to produce greater effectiveness than either party can accomplish independently. This partnership assumes an inter- dependent perspective. The churches realize that they do not have to respond to every need. Instead, they concentrate their energies and finances on a handful of needs at most, upon which they can have impact. Often this concentration of energies and finances is aimed at reaching an unreached people group.

Missions education is accomplished by both “high tech” and “high touch”. “High tech,” in the sense that missionaries increasingly stay in communication with their supporters by the use of faxes, telephones, electronic mail, voice mail and electronic bulletin boards. “High touch,” in that there is personal contact between supporters

and their missionaries. Synergistic churches encourage Baby Boomers and others in their congregations, to visit the mission field to gain a sense of ownership, develop personal relationships with missionaries, and to understand why their church should strive for a strong missions emphasis (Engel and Jones 1989). Short-term trips are encouraged also, since they greatly facilitate more prayer for world evangelization and especially focused prayer on the part of the participants (STEM Ministries 1991).

The question of the church’s role in obeying the Great Commission is precipitated by several factors. One is the recognition of a global Christian community. The missions- active church, in this paradigm, recognizes that the American church does not have sole responsibility for world evangelization. The Great Commission applies to every church, and since nearly 70% of the Christian community is now non-Western (Johnstone 1993:26), the synergistic church realizes that, at least numerically, the role of the American church is diminishing.

Additionally, the synergistic church recognizes that the number of non-Western missionaries is increasing dramatically. Whereas in 1991 only 36% of the world’s Protestant missionary force was from the two-thirds world, in A.D. 2000, it is projected that this number will have risen to 55% (Pate 1991:58-59). This increase, coupled with the growing concern about the cost of support for American missionaries, has helped give rise to the idea that supporting nationals can be more cost effective.

Synergistic churches desire to make a significant impact on the non-Christian world. They do not want to be passive participants in the Great Commission. They want to be active and want their efforts to count for something. At the core of the idea of significant impact is the concept of ‘leverage” Synergistic churches realize that they can do more by working together with others than they could by ministering in isolation.

Risk taking is inherent to the synergistic approach. It is characterized by trying various approaches to missions, including an entrepreneurial one Congregations utilizing the synergistic paradigm likely will reflect many of the Boomers values, such as a desire for multiple options in ministry, appreciation for diversity among individuals (men and women, lay and professional, ethnic and Anglo), desire for change and a hope for significance in their lives (Bama 1990; Collins and Clinton 1992), as well as the Boomers’ value of pragmatism (Strauss and Howe 1991). For example, synergistic churches, influenced by the Boomers’ value of pragmatism, will scrutinize agencies and plans based upon actual accomplishments, as opposed to rhetoric They likely will agree with Andrall Pearson, Professor of Business Administration at Harvard’s Business School, who writes: “Successful companies today realize that change is the new order and innovation is the primary driver” (1992:70).

This third paradigm emphasizes that the Great Commission applies to everyone. Churches seek to involve their constituents not only as goers and senders but as active participants in ministry in the community in which they reside. Therefore, the focus is on opportunity and empowering others to be involved in meaningful ways in outreach.

The traditional signs of success for a missions program — more money, more recruits and more missions education time in church activities — is replaced by the perspective which views success in terms of souls saved, churches planted and more church members empowered for ministry. A closure mentality on projects is applied. And there is a multi-pronged strategy for church participation, as well as multiple means of involvement by church members for each strategy.

Mission organizations which will flourish during the time frame of this model are those which facilitate a local churches’ missions plans. Antioch Network is a prime example. Its goal is to network congregations that want to send church planting teams to unreached peoples (Antioch Times 1993:3). An organization called Issachar is another example. This organization partners with local churches to assist congregations in developing their visions and strategies in reaching their adopted people groups (Moats 1991:5).

The Adopt-A-People concept is a strategy which corresponds well with the synergistic paradigm, and should blossom during this decade. The idea of a single people group focus for a church correlates with the question of a church’s role in obeying the Great Commission. Rather than strategizing to evangelize several thousand unreached people groups, the local church focuses on only one group. Instead of exclusively relying on others to develop a strategy to evangelize a group, a congregation can partner with others in determining a multi-pronged strategy. Entrepreneurial partnering churches which adopt a people group can be creative and resourceful in evangelizing the group. They can send tentmakers, support nationals, raise money to translate the Jesus Film into the language of the people, commission residential or non-residential missionaries, utilize radio broadcasts, etc.

As Great Commission-minded Boomers and Busters achieve positions of leadership in local churches, one can assume their beliefs and values will influence their decisions. While this is true for both the supporting and sending

paradigms, it is especially true of the synergistic one Other paradigm factors often influenced by the values of Boomers and/or Busters, both positively and negatively, which will affect the church, include:

(1) The blurring of religious distinctions and categories Polarizing theological issues such as charismatic/non- charismatic or Protestant versus Roman Catholic will be of less concern in this decade of the synergistic paradigm

(2) The changing United States missionary role As national churches mature, the role of American missionaries must change They will assume a facilitating role to assist the church in specialized areas. Church-related tasks in which missionaries have traditionally worked will fall to national leaders (Pate 1991:61). In areas and people groups where the church is not established, however, church planters will still be needed.

(3) The recognition that missions is not just overseas. Numerous language and ethnic groups have come to the United States. These must be evangelized. For example, residing in Los Angeles County alone are individuals from about 140 different countries, In 1989, only 42% of the population was Anglo. By 2010, it is projected that in Los Angeles there will be more Hispanics than Anglos. In the Los Angeles Unified School District, it is estimated that close to 100 different languages are spoken by the students (Pearlstone 1990). Synergistic church leaders recognize that demographics are changing in the United States, and that the mission fields include a multitude of ethnic groups which live within their own communities.

(4) The intertwined growth ofevangelisni and social programs. There is a growing perception that the dichotomy between evangelism and social programs is somewhat artificial. Ministries like Prison Fellowship which intertwine the two will flourish. Issues like AIDS, refugees, gangs, drugs and starvation will not be dealt with only on the spiritual level.

(5) The recognition of needing to hear the Holy Spirit speak through Christians from around the world. For many years, God has used Westerners to set the Christian agenda for the rest of the world. Now, believers want to listen to non-Westerners, also. (6) The perception that changes in the world occur rapidly and require a quick response. God often grants only brief windows of opportunity for believers to seize. For example, there is not indication of how long some of the new Muslim dominated countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States will remain open to missionary endeavors. Synergistic churches expect agencies to respond quickly to these current opportunities.

The following chart summarizes the differences between the three paradigms presented.

Summary of Paradigm Shifts in World Missions

Paradigm

Supporting

Sending

Synergistic

Time Period

1970s and before

1980s

1990s

Key Word

They

My

We

Description

Dependent

Independent

Inter-dependent

Key Question

What is their game plan?

What is my church’s plan?

What is our role in obeying the Great Commission?

Mission Agency

High loyalty to a particular agency

Awareness that an agency is one of many

Recognition of a global Christian community

Decision-an aking

Agency makes the decisions

Partnerships with the agency

Is this a strategic ministry?

Geographical Support

Support outside the region

Support within the region

Support of non-Western missionaries

Philosophical Support

Support American missionaries

Recruit/train/support our own

Partnership with others (both American and non- American)

Congregational Outreach

Non-directive philosophy

Directive philosophy

Empower church constituency philosophy

Relationships

Superficial contact and relationship with missionaries

Quality/quantity time relationship with our missionaries

Desire to make a significant impact on the non-Christian world

Missions Education

By outsiders through slides, speakers, conferences, etc.

By insiders who take short- term trips and by quality guest speakers

Missions education facilitated by “high tech and high touch”

Church Participation

Emphasis on goers

Emphasis on goers and senders

Emphasis on everyone participating in outreach

Focus

Focus is on money

Focus is on people

Focus is on opportunity

Strategy

No church strategy

A single church strategy

Multi-pronged church strategy

Signs of Success

Bigger missions budgets, better missions conferences

Bigger budgets, more missionaries sent

Souls saved, churches planted, more church members empowered for ministry

Implications

It should be emphasized at the outset of this section that these paradigms are based on historical observation They are not developmental stages In other words, a church could begin its missions involvement from the synergistic paradigm Or a supporting church could skip the sending church paradigm and transition instead to the synergistic church paradigm Thus, a church can choose which paradigm it wants to follow While there is no one right answer from which paradigm a church should operate, normally churches should strive for inter-dependence as opposed to dependence or independence paradigms.

Not all churches have changed their modus operandi and/or paradigm, nor should they. Some still fit the paradigm of supporting churches. Others are now sending churches. But some are, and others will become, synergistic churches. Agencies need to think through how to assist all three types of churches.

What are the implications of this synergistic paradigm for mission agencies? How should they respond to it? If the key question for the model is: What is our role in obeying the Great Commission? then two questions must be considered. First: Does our organization offer a pre-packaged program, either by attitude or action, of what a church should do in missions? Do we strive to enable churches to fulfill their vision? For example, does our Adopt- A-People approach allow for creativity and genuine partnership? Do we dictate the game plan for ministry in all instances? Do we welcome dialogue from churches in the development of mission strategies?

The synergistic paradigm does not mean that the leaders of an agency no longer have the prerogative to set the direction for that agency. As leaders, that is their duty. However, if an agency agrees with this paradigm, it will allow others to have input into where and how the agency might minister in the future.

Leaders of the Evangelical Free Church Mission, for example, recognize that there is a paradigm shift occurring among local churches, Beyond acknowledging this shift, they also have thought through their response to local churches which originate their own overseas ministries. As a mission, the Evangelical Free Church has stated that there are at least four types of responses which they could give to churches which launch their own initiatives. First, they could respond at the encouragement 1evel. Here, they rejoice in what a church is doing and show genuine interest in its ministry. Second, they could respond at a consultant level. At this level, they meet with the leadership of a church to help them think through the pros and cons of the project and what would be necessary for it to flourish. The mission’s expertise and resources would be made available to the church. Third, they could respond at a partnership level. The terms of the partnership would need to be negotiated as to lines of authority, finances, role of the local church, role of the mission etc. The fourth response would be the adoption level. Here, adoption means the mission would ultimately take responsibility for the ministry. Any of these four responses could apply to entering a new country, targeting an unreached people, evangelizing a world-class city, etc.

The second question which an agency must consider in regard to the synergistic paradigm is: Has our mission agency adequately defined its role in the synergistic era? If so, in what ways? Are we aggressively practicing what we have defined? Do the traditional measures of success for our agency (more money and more recruits) adequately take into account the synergistic paradigm? Flow has our role changed in each of these three paradigms? Specifically, what programs and attitudes have changed as a result of our recognizing the changing paradigms? Have these changes been communicated with churches and missionaries? Are these changes acknowledged and supported by our entire mission leadership?

Agencies can still provide a great service to local churches which are operating out of the synergistic paradigm. To be effective, however, agencies will need to think creatively about how to work in true partnership with local churches. Just as a national church moves through various stages of development with a mission agency (Fuller 1980), local churches also must move through stages of development.

Congregations often do not realize that there are various paradigms form which they can operate. Those that do need to ask themselves three major questions: First, what do we believe is the role of our church in obeying the Great Commission? Second, what is the world evangelization paradigm of our church for this decade? To determine the answer to this question, you may want to ask: what are the pros and cons of each paradigm for our congregation? What issues need to be discussed for our church to follow either the sending or the synergistic paradigm? As we transition from a supporting church to a sending or synergistic church paradigm, what changes will need to occur in our missions philosophy and practice? Third, how should we begin to make these changes?

The synergistic paradigm offers local churches meaningful participation in the Great Commission. Yet, it is not a panacea. It will not cure every ailment found in the world missions enterprise. It does, however, sufficiently understand and address the changing global realities. It recognizes that the American church still has a significant role to play in world evangelism. But, it also acknowledges that the American church is not the only player in this endeavor.

Will there be a church planting movement among every unreached people group by the year 2000? The answer is no, unless changes occur in how churches participated in world evangelization. While all three paradigms allow for involvement by churches in evangelizing unreached peoples (Camp 1993 :22-25), only the sending and synergistic paradigms allow for aggressive actions by congregations in bringing closure to this task in the foreseeable future. If the goal is a church for every people and the gospel for every person by the end of this decade or the next, then a myriad of supporting churches and numerous sending churches must develop into synergistic churches.

The supporting paradigm of passive involvement by most local churches is not conducive to an accelerated emphasis for world evangelization. More biblically and missiologically informed and Spirit led action is needed, especially as it relates to evangelizing unreached peoples. Prayerfully, numerous churches will accept the challenge of becoming followers of the synergistic paradigm because, unfortunately, the key question for the next paradigm might be: How do we conduct missions in a post-Christian American environment?

Mobilizer magazine is published quarterly for the members of ACMC (Advancing Churches in Missions Commitment). ACMC exists to help Christian congregations mobilize their resources for effective involvement in world evangelization. Within ACMC’s larger purpose, Mobilizer magazine brings to you a wide range of views that will stretch your thinking. We want you to ask questions about how your church does missions. Therefore Mobilizer will present views and models that are not necessarily the opinions of ACMC. We welcome your response. Ken Campbell, Editor ACMC, P0 Box ACMC, Wheaton, IL 60189 (708) 260-1660

About the Author: Bruce K. Camp has been working with missions committees for over 16 years. He has been a missions pastor and currently is the Director of District Missions Consultants for the Evangelical Free Church Mission. Bruce has a Doctor of Missiology degree from Biola University, School of Intercultural Studies. He and his wife, Sue, have one son, Joshua, and live in Southern California.