The Social Barrier
The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh barriers are somewhat different from the first three in that they are not unique to cross-cultural contexts. The “social barrier,” in particular, must be taken into account even in contexts in which the communicational sender is from a background that is culturally near to that of the receptor. The “social barrier” has to do with the related issues of credibility and trust. To a certain degree, these issues are tied into a successful overcoming of the first three barriers. Though there are some exceptions to the rule, someone who is geographically, linguistically, and culturally near, in many, if not most, cases, will be more likely to be viewed as credible and trustworthy by the receptor of the message. Nevertheless, in many contexts in which the first three barriers have been successfully overcome, the “social barrier” still poses a significant obstacle toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
Overcoming the “social barrier” involves gaining personal credibility with the people one is seeking to influence, leading them to see the sender of the message as a person whose word is worthy of consideration and trust. Though this list is not meant to be conclusive, there are at least four important ways in which missionary practitioners may gain credibility and win the trust of their hearers. These include personal friendship, good works, a life testimony consistent with spoken testimony, and the communion of the church.
The gospel is a message of personal relationship between God and man, as well as between man and man. It is a natural corollary, therefore, that the communication of the gospel best takes place within the context of authentic, heartfelt, and caring personal relationships. It has well been stated: “People don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care.”
Gioia Michelotti shares the following reflections on missionary work in Japan, based on her interview with Japanese pastor Takeshi Shiraishi:
During bridge-building, which Shiraishi calls the first stage of evangelism, the concept of common grace must be appreciated and nurtured. In this stage Christians prove that they are Christians by their love. After warm relationships have been formed, the second stage of seed-planting can occur naturally, because the soil of the heart has been adequately prepared. Finally, after much watering and tending by caring Christians, soul-harvesting will come at the time ordained by the Holy Spirit. “The direct, confrontational approach used by most Western missionaries is not the best way to win the Japanese heart,” said Shiraishi. “Eastern culture esteems the indirect, relational approach.” (19)
Rankin endorses this approach as a basic principle for cross-cultural witness in any context:
When missionaries, or even short-term volunteers, go to plant their lives in a culture and among people who do not know Jesus, the living presence of Jesus Himself goes with them. As they live out their faith through friendships and personal relationships, people can observe the reality of their faith. They gain credibility that allows them to share it verbally. Being there, they can communicate with an understanding of the worldview of the people they live among. They can cultivate a witness, follow up and nurture new fellowships of believers, and walk alongside those God calls out as indigenous local leaders. We call this an “incarnational witness.” It is not only using media tools, humanitarian platforms and occasions for teaching and preaching, but it is allowing nonbelievers to observe in flesh and blood what it means to be a follower of Christ. (20)
Another important way to help overcome the “social barrier” and gain credibility in the eyes of the people one is seeking to influence for the gospel is by means of what may broadly be classified as “good works.” Paul says, in 2 Corinthians 4:5: “For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.” In a real sense, then, our acts of service toward other people to whom we are seeking to proclaim the gospel are a form of preaching in and of themselves. However, the essential message we proclaim is not merely one of humanitarianism and goodwill to fellow human beings, but rather the lordship of Jesus. Though there is a definite priority placed in the Bible on the verbal proclamation of the message of spiritual redemption, the implication of this text is that neither our preaching of Jesus Christ as Lord nor our acts of service toward those to whom we preach are complete without the other.
Dick Grady and Glenn Kendall share some very practical advice on the relationship between social ministry and gospel proclamation in a church planting context:
More effective church planters establish greater credibility. . . . Credibility is established in two ways, by meeting social needs and by building relationships with community leaders. These steps of themselves do not make church planters more effective. But as church planters incorporate social work and building relationships into their total ministries, people respond. Social work is not the primary focus of effective church planters, but one of many activities done by the more effective ones. They do not say, “First, we will fill your stomach and then you will be willing to hear our message.” Rather, they say, “We will proclaim our message. If you want to have your stomach filled, that is possible, too.” Social activity and gospel witness go on simultaneously. One does not depend on the other. (21)
Howard Searle, Director for Community Health Progams of MAP International, argues for the strategic value of development ministries as a vital part of a balanced holistic approach to missions:
When Christians actively demonstrate Christ’s love by responding to physical need, relationships of trust develop which often lead to opportunities for sharing Christ’s message on a one-to-one basis. . . . The Great Commission and community development are not antagonistic. Rather, the Christian who patiently, gently helps people learn to relieve their suffering heightens receptivity to the Christian message. People see that Christianity is a vital faith lived out through love and deeds. (22)
Another important way of contributing toward the overcoming of the “social barrier” is a life testimony consistent with one’s spoken testimony. Paul’s description in 2 Corinthians 4:2 of the standard practice of his missionary team serves as a model for modern-day Christian workers: “Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” It is vitally important that potential receptors of the gospel message perceive the senders of the message as sincere, authentic, and consistent in their personal lifestyle.
A final means for overcoming the “social barrier” is the communion of the church. In his high priestly prayer, Jesus himself appears to link evangelistic effectiveness with Christian unity: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:20–21)
In 1 John chapter 1, John writes of three different spheres or levels of communion. First, in v. 3, he references the fellowship that “we” (presumably John, together with the other eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry inferred in v. 1) share “with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.” Next, in v. 7, he references the fellowship that “we” (this time, the broader community of followers of Christ wherever they are found) have “with one another,” as “we walk in the light.” Finally, in the first part of v. 3, he writes of proclaiming “to you” (the receptors of his epistle) “what we” (John, and his fellow eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry) “have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.”
A logical inference from this passage is that an important basis of gospel proclamation is Christian fellowship, first between the proclaimer, God the Father, and God the Son, but also between the various disciples that comprise the Christian community. A necessary previous condition for inviting others to “have fellowship with us” is a pre-existing fellowship between those who are already believers.
Jim Reapsome makes some cogent observations on the strategic value of this vital means for overcoming the “social barrier”:
Our unity is the most overlooked ‘strategy’ for world evangelization . . . When we throw out John 17 for the sake of the good old church fight, we send ripples of spiritual degeneration around the world. Divisiveness at home is connected to spiritual resistance abroad. If what Jesus said means anything at all, it means lack of response overseas is connected to what we are here. Praying for a breakthrough in the 10-40 Window? Great. Where are the great prayer summonses for unity in Christ’s body? Where are the churches and mission agencies that will issue a call for unity before studying the ramifications of Generation X for world missions? (23)
Though frequently overlooked or minimized, in many missionary contexts, the “social barrier” can be one of the most significant obstacles that gets in the way of successfully fulfilling the Great Commission. Providentially, there are also various tools the Lord of the Harvest has given to his workers, which are effective means of overcoming this barrier.
(to be continued…)
__________________________________________________________________________
(19) Gioia Michelotti, “The Search for the Best Way to Win Japan,” EMQ (1995): 295.
(20) Rankin, 143.
(21) Dick Grady and Glenn Kendall, “Seven Keys to Effective Church Planting,” EMQ (1992): 368.
(22) Howard Searle, “Development Work Fits the Great Commission,” EMQ (1982): 160–61.
(23) Jim Reapsome, “Our Most Overlooked Strategy,” EMQ (1996): 134–35.
Excellent again, David. I think we will have arrived when we find ourselves as interested in discussing missiology as we do engaging in petty food-fights over a glass of wine. Oh well.
Excellent article.
the term ‘fellowship’ . . . is this somewhat similar in meaning(s)
to the ‘biblical’ word ‘koinonia’ which appears many times in sacred Scripture?
or does it have a more casual meaning in your post?
Chistiane,
As I understand it, Christian fellowship is the same as the biblical concept of koinonia. It is also the practical application of Christian unity, and is expressed more specifically through the various “one another” exhortations of the NT.
thanks for responding, DAVID
For what it’s worth, I asked R. Keith Parks in the summer of 2008 how he felt John 17 fit into effective missions. He said that unless there is an appreciation for how the lack of unity impacts missions, then we’re likely to see a generation or more of ineffective missions as the result of significant periods of disagreement.
Now I’m going to make my controversial comment: in Parks’ view the Baptist World Alliance and other such forums help with unity worldwide. I’m not as sold on that as he is. But you can’t attend to unity while emphasizing separatism. So our withdrawal from those kinds of forums prevents us from influencing. But if the influence is ineffective–and you could argue it had become so to some extent–there is a point where you cogitate on when enough is enough.
I think it’s interesting that David arrived completely independently at a very similar notion. My take has been that John 15, John 17, and Matthew 25 (specifically the parable of the sheep and the goats) are very strongly linked from a missiological viewpoint. David’s comments here go a long way to explaining WHY and HOW they are linked in my opinion.
P.S. As a reminder, I’m only a former MK while David has served actively on a mission field. If you’re going to prefer one person’s view over the others, you should choose David’s in my opinion. Mine is at best the kibitzing of a mere amateur.
Greg,
I agree with Keith Parks that, at least as a general principle, the BWA and other such forums help with unity worldwide. The only catch is that, from the perspective of some, there were other factors involved that overrode the priority of seeking and promoting unity through the BWA. Whether or not those other factors were really that crucial, I am not totally sure. I have seen some information that has led me to conclude there were (and continue to be) some doctrinal problems among some groups associated with the BWA. I think an important question behind all this is to what degree these particular problems forced us as Southern Baptists to compromise on key doctrinal convictions. Some others may want to check in on this and share more inside information, if they are privy to such.
But I do agree with the basic premise that as Southern Baptists engaging in world missions we need forums such as the BWA through which to express our broader unity with the Body of Christ at large. And, not only in strictly Baptist circles, but with other biblically faithful Evangelicals, as well, through organizations such as the Lausanne Movement, and the World Evangelical Alliance. Now there may be problems with some of these groups as well; and even where there have not been in the past, there may be in future. But that doesn’t mean we can afford to take a position of indifference toward the way in which we publicly express or unity with other groups of brothers and sisters in Christ. If the existing forums are inadequate, we must create new ones. What we cannot do is maintain a position of de facto isolationism from the rest of the Body of Christ.
Frankly, I believe this is one of the biggest gaps in much of Southern Baptist missions strategy today. And although I don’t agree with Dr. Parks on everything, I think, at least in general principle, he was right on target with this one.
Dr. Rankin was pretty good about cooperating with others even outside the denominational fold to foster missions, was he not? That is my recollection anyway.
Here is an article that gives some insights into the answer of your question:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/05/historical-documents-baptist_23.html
And here is another that discusses the role of Dr. Parks:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/05/historical-documents-baptist_20.html
Updating the reference to what I believe isParks’ position paper entitled “The Great Commission”. (The reference on David’s blog didn’t resolve for me and I think this is the correct document.)
‘Though frequently overlooked or minimized, in many missionary contexts, the “social barrier” can be one of the most significant obstacles that gets in the way of successfully fulfilling the Great Commission.’
I know it is for me. In the required Evangelism course years ago in college networking was taught and emphasized as an important aspect of evangelism. I knew then that I would be fairly ineffective in evangelism.
“As they live out their faith through friendships and personal relationships, people can observe the reality of their faith.”
Those are pretty weak cords in my case.
Thank you David. This is an excellent article on a subject that seems so obvious but is often overlooked in our rush to carry the Gospel to the World. I assume this is part of a dissertation. I hope I can read the whole project. I have been off line lately so I am getting caught up on your series and hope to read each one carefully and if possible comment. I hope someday you end up back with the IMB. They could use your wisdom.
Overcoming social barriers is often crucial in gaining a hearing for the Gospel. As far as personal friendship, you have already written on the importance of communicating in the heart language of the people. True friendship doesn’t always follow. I found it also important to live among the people, go to their homes and invite them to your home. Attend their funerals and weddings and other important social events. Among the Chinese it is important to sit and drink tea with them or for the younger set Starbucks coffee. I am talking about with unbelievers as well as believers.
Good works is a complicated issue. There are times that needs are so great that they cannot hear you until those needs are met. Nevertheless, money can be a barrier if the relationship depends more on money than anything else.
The life testimony goes along with personal friendship. It is easy to tell if you are sincere in your friendship. Often missionaries stand out like a sore thumb in the community. Because we lived among Chinese who look very different than my wife and I, everyone knew who we were and watched our actions anytime we were out of the house and discussed them with their neighbors. Attitude is as important as all the other factors.
I have known short term or one week volunteers who had a gift for connecting with people to cross social barriers almost immediately. So there isn’t one formula that fits all.
I found the comments in your article on communion as well as those after your article interesting. At the IMB we have always attempted to be in fellowship with our Baptist around the world and non-Baptist evangelicals also in a responsible manner without betraying our Baptist principles. David Miller is aware that in Taiwan we join with other evangelical missions to operate an MK school. This happens in many parts of the world. When Franklin Graham came to Taiwan I attended the planning meetings along with other mission groups and national churches. We supported that effort. When a large earthquake struck Taiwan in 1999, we cooperated with World Vision and other evangelical relief organizations so we could all make the best use of our resources. We meet for fellowship and prayer often with other evangelicals. We still started Baptist churches and had our own evangelism programs and institutions but we were glad other evangelicals were sharing the gospel also. They were often less worried about denominational labels that Southern Baptists are.
If David Miller will permit me, I will take your request for others to share information they are privy to on our breakup with the BWA and respond in a separate comment.
It is not part of my dissertation, but it is a paper I wrote for a doctoral seminar on some ideas I have been presenting for a number if years when I get to speak about missions to various groups. I have tweaked the content just a little to make it wirk as a series of blog posts. The clincher, which will make more sense and give more continuity to the series as a whole, will be the final post… two more barriers, and then the conclusion.
David, I agree with you and Keith Parks that the BWA helps in the area of Christian unity worldwide. Our break with the BWA was not over theology but because the BWA accepted the CBF into its membership. If you read the correspondence between the SBC executive committee and the BWA, that is obvious. Paige Patterson and others decided they should be punished for this and only then began looking for some way to claim theological problems to justify their actions.
The week that the SBC Executive Committee voted to recommend withdrawal from the BWA, BWA President, Billy Kim, the highly respected Korean pastor, was in Taiwan on his BWA travels. I was invited to have dinner with him and 5 or 6 Chinese pastors. The breakup was the main topic of discussion and being the only American or Southern Baptist present they looked to me for comments. I won’t share my comments but I will share what Billy Kim shared. He said he told Paige Patterson that the BWA was theologically sound and begged him to not withdraw. He shared with us and Patterson one reason it was in our interest to stay in. When there are problems in countries with Baptist being persecuted, we can have a stronger voice if we join the BWA instead of speaking alone. Other countries are far more impressed with an organization that represent over 40 million Baptists around the world in over 200 countries than just the SBC. Of course Patterson ignored all that. After his time as BWA president, Patterson invited Billy Kim to Southwestern and gave him some type of award. I suppose he was trying to make up for his insult to Kim’s leadership. Denton Lotz was Executive Secretary at the time. He was also a solid theological conservative.
I received a letter from Richmond asking me to go to the Chinese Baptist Convention and explain to them that because of aberrant theological issues in the BWA the SBC was withdrawing from the BWA but we at the IMB would want continue to work with individual Baptist bodies. If I had done that I would have lost credibility with our Baptist leaders in Taiwan. They knew the BWA was theologically sound and would not belong to it themselves if Patterson’s claims were true. I went to them and just said I regretted what had happened but our missionaries in Taiwan would not change our relationship to them.
David, are the Baptists of Spain part of the BWA? I find it interesting that our IMB missionaries in many parts of the world cooperate with and partner with Baptist bodies who are proud and active members of the BWA but our own SBC is not. If we really believed that the BWA is theologically dangerous we would withdraw from those groups also. The fact that we haven’t is an admission we know the withdrawal was political and not theological
In an organization with over 200 Baptist bodies it is certainly possible to find a church or someone who is a questionable theologically but the BWA as a whole was and is solid. David, I can think of no way we would be forced to compromise on our basic theological beliefs by remaining in the BWA.
The current BWA President is my friend John Upton. John was an IMB missionary in Taiwan. I can recall staying in his home when he was trying to plant churches in fishing villages on the east coast of Taiwan near Tainan. David Miller, you may remember Tainan was not an easy place to live in those days. John is a solid theological conservative. The fact that we cannot work together with our Baptist brothers and sisters around the world through the BWA because of our political problems is a mark against the unity of the Body.
Pulling out from BWA was, on balance, not a good long term move unless there is far more information than was made public to Southern Baptists back when the SBC movers and shakers drove the action and the SBCin session approved it.
The alternative, one guy working out of the SBC Executive Committee, didn’t fill the gap. Now, that has been eliminated.
I consider myself to be reasonably well informed on such things but I have no idea what strategy and means we are now using to relate to other Baptists worldwide.
It may be time to reconsider our decision to nix the BWA.
William we hurt ourselves more than we hurt the BWA. They are doing fine without us. We need their fellowship and support.
After the break with the BWA, Bobby Welch was hired by the Executive Committee to try and establish relationships with other Baptist bodies. Of course IMB missionaries already had those relationships but were not consulted. I don’t know what they were thinking. I know of nothing Welch accomplished besides being paid a salary and traveling around a lot. I never saw any evidence of his work in East Asia. If they would hire me for one day, I could accomplish more that Bobby Welch did in the years he worked. I would go directly to BWA headquarters and ask that they take us back.
Interesting comments, Ron & William. I wonder if it is possible at this juncture for the SBC to go back and revisit something like BWA membership. I seem to remember hearing something about someone going to meetings as an observer, but I am very fuzzy on this. I have also wondered what became of the Global Evangelical Relations office. I agree that in most places the important ground-level relationship building is done between career missionaries and national denominational leaders in the countries in which they work. But it is also good for denominational leaders to build relationships with their counterparts in the SBC. Also it is good to not limit these relationships to Baptist partners alone. That was one aspect of the Global Evangelical Relations office that I liked. In some places (definitely not all!) we as Southern Baptists have more in common wuth some Evangelical groups without the wird Baptist in their name than with those which do have it.
I believe not long ago John Upton and other BWA leaders met with Frank Page and others at the SBC Executive Committee to discuss the SBC rejoining the BWA. Frank Page was not open to it. He has always been careful not to cross the line that would offend those in control of the CR. This was either not reported in Baptist Press or not given much coverage. Again it is not something those in Baptist Press feel free to speak much about. They might have to go back over the embarrassing history of how we left the BWA.
And I really like Frank Page, and due to his track record thus far on other issues tend to have an a priori trust for his judgment on matters like this. But I would really be curious to know more of the ins and outs regarding all this. I know that a few years ago when Bill Wagner was nominated as president of the SBC, this was a key issue on his agenda. But it does appear to me there have always been some elements related to all this that have been kept “under wraps.”
David,
I’m curious, do SBC missionaries have relationships/involved with the various Baptist Unions across the globe? Do SBC missionaries interact with local Baptist churches where they are serving?
I understand that the answer to that question may depend on geography.
I’m just wondering what the SBC’s departure from BWA really meant practically-speaking at the national and local levels.
BDW,
It’s been about 4 years since I’ve been officially affiliated with the IMB, so you will need to take that into account. But since the question you ask is one I am particularly interested in, somewhat of a soapbox issue for me even, I will be happy to share what I know.
The answer does depend somewhat (as you correctly intuit) on the particular region and even on the country within that region. It also depends, though, on the particular missionaries involved, and the particular national Baptist leaders involved. Longer-term missionaries who already had developed close relationships with national Baptist leaders before the changes introduced with New Directions tended to maintain these relationships, since in many cases they were personal friendships that transcended IMB strategy. Newer workers appointed after the transition to New Directions in many cases, though, tended to not place much priority on developing relationships with national Baptist leaders. In some cases (not all!), they were even discouraged from doing so, as too close of a connection with established churches and their so-called “contaminated DNA” was viewed as counterproductive to church planting movements. There were definitely a few years where new workers arriving on the field came with this mindset, which apparently had been drilled into them during pre-field orientation, and leaders at various levels who drank deeply of the New Directions “Kool-Aid” preached this mindset as well.
Thankfully, my impression is that the hardline approach toward this has pretty much run its course, though there may still be some lingering after-effects along this line in certain sectors.
In Spain, there are some career missionaries, both old-timers, and a few newer arrivals, who have maintain close relationships with national Baptist leaders. Others, not so much.
In the past several years, I have travelled some in Latin America and gotten to know key Baptist leaders in various countries. My impression there is similar to Spain. There are some missionaries who have done an exemplary job of fostering and maintaining relationships with the national Baptist leaders. Others not so much.
I had the privilege of attending the annual UBLA (Latin American Baptist Union) leadership forum a couple of years ago. There was no official IMB representation, though BWA and CBF were represented. That was sad to me. Various national Baptist leaders have confided to me that they have felt “orphaned” by the IMB. They still are very open to any initiative on the part of Southern Baptists (whether through the IMB or otherwise) to partner and to further fraternal relationships. I personally am very grateful for the IMB missionaries who have a vision for the importance of this and who have worked hard at maintaining close friendships with the national leaders.
On another front, I know that in India, due to the way IMB work historically developed, ties between the IMB and the 21 or so Baptist unions/conventions were practically non-existent until 3 or 4 years ago when someone was appointed as liaison between the IMB and Baptist unions/conventions. I am hopeful that some good progress has been made in this area.
BDW,
David’s reply I think is very accurate and reflects what we experienced as well. We served for almost 16 years with the FMB/IMB, predominantly in Argentina following a year of language school in Costa Rica and then for a short stint in Mexico. There is no question I think that New Directions marked a significant upheaval in the way missionary strategy was done in connection with national conventions. The IMB basically moved from a cooperative mindset when it came to establishing priorities in conjunction with national leadership to an autocratic, unilateral approach to both missionary deployment and funding of capital needs items and institutional support. The description of a punch to the gut that David alludes to is a pretty accurate assessment of how many nationals felt when New Directions was implemented. By and large, their input was no longer sought nor appreciated.
The International Baptist Theological Seminary where I taught in Buenos Aires was supposed to have been progressively defunded over a period of 15 or 20 years if memory serves me correctly. That was the Argentine Baptist Mission’s (the organization of IMB missionaries in the country) initial agreement with the Argentine Baptist Convention (the national body). Three or four years later, that support was totally eliminated rather than being slowly phased out. The only compensation offered to the seminary was the eventual use of some of the missionary residences that were located near the seminary campus.
New Directions as implemented in Argentina by regional leadership also required missionary families living by themselves in the interior in several strategic urban centers to uproot and move to other cities to form church planting teams with other IMB missionaries, even though when it was originally introduced, the concept was that a church planting team could be composed of an IMB family and one or more nationals. That implementation prompted several resignations as folks who had invested their lives in building relationships with nationals in a particular setting resisted (rightfully so I think) a forced move to another location.
Just one further anecdotal piece of information. Following our resignation from the IMB in 2002 (when we refused to sign the BF&M 2000) we returned to the States and following a year of support from the BGCT, I began serving in my present capacity as associate pastor of a church in Missouri. Shortly thereafter, I also joined the staff of the Baptist General Convention of Missouri as their missions mobilization team leader. I took an exploratory trip to Guatemala in 2005 in connection with WorldconneX (the TX Baptist missions organization) as the BGCM was seeking an international partnership. There I discovered that the Guatemala Baptist Convention also felt “orphaned” by the IMB and was looking for new partners to assist them in ministries. Their leaders expressed that the IMB wasn’t working directly with them any longer. When asked how we might assist them, they suggested we could provide leadership training for pastors and leaders in the western part of the country and that has given rise to twice-a-year training events which began in 2007 and continue to date. I think there has been some improvement in the relationships between missionaries and nationals in Guatemala in recent years, but there are some emotional scars that persist from the rupture in the relationship.
Rejoin the BWA ….. Are y’all serious?
The ambitiously named Global Relations Office and GR Ambassador (I immediately named BW our Ambassador to the Galaxy) was an ad hoc, made up deal. Frank Page wisely jettisoned the whole thing as a part of his XComm budget cuts. So far, FP is the only SBC entity head who isn’t trying to grab even more cookies from the jar.
I doubt it is in the offing but I’d explore a relationship with the BWA. Back in the day, we paid far too many of the bills, good old SBC golden goose.
I’m posting this as a separated comment from David Rogers’ most recent one, though you might find some similarity. In Indonesia there was a continuing tension between the pastors of the Indonesian national convention and the Mission (i.e. the FMB/IMB localized administration and all the missionaries.) While this is far enough in my past that I don’t remember many of the details and especially I don’t remember the key personalities (let me offer that during my memory Jerry Rankin was not in any kind of formal leadership role in the Mission and served “merely” as a field evangelist), I do remember discussions about it.
One discussion had to do with frustration by the national convention about both strategy for new areas and expenditure of money in general. They generally wished they could have more direct participation in both discussions. A second one had to do with support for key congregations that probably in a fair analysis would have been considered “strategic”. At the time we were in Indonesia, the FMB was emphasizing sustainability of plants and emphasized “indigenous” support for plants.
Just to frame that last situation: Kebayoran Baptis in Jakarta had by long history an English-language service that met at the convenient Western time of 10am(ish) for SS and 11am(ish) for Worship if I recall correctly. There were a number of ex-pats in addition to it having a missionary pastor for the English-language service and being the home church for the Hostel (when I was there that included the Hostel parent family of two missionaries and three middle- and high-school aged MKs and 16 high-school-aged being boarded there and attending nearby Joint Embassy School).
That congregation benefited from a very nice, western-styled facility (though unairconditioned!!) and probably–I don’t remember reviewing the finances–had better tithes and offerings than the typical, small-city or small-town Bahasa Indonesia or local language church plant. Missionaries were cautioned, for instance, about tithing only to the local church to avoid creating a dependency on the missionaries giving.
After at least one flood that I remember at the Gereja Baptis Madiun (gereja is derived from Dutch and is very similar to the German kirche: which is where the English church comes from–which is kind of the same thing I realized regarding the Spanish Iglesia which is directly derived from ekklesia), after we left Madiun the mission station we lived in was turned over to that congregation as its new building. Notionally the buildings could NOT be owned by foreigners and therefore the Mission partnered with the national convention on property management. So while it might seem reasonable that Americans should direct the spending of American dollars, it is ALWAYS more complicated than it seems at first blush…just in case you might be thinking that thought.
One of the recurring themes from both of David’s blogs is that we’re expressing concern about how our actions of the BMT-era alienated the international partners that we originally helped get started. For better or for worse, we have a history of being somewhat uncareful in how we frame things that continues to impact how we as Southern Baptist interact with national churches and conventions. It doesn’t descend to the level of carelessness per se. It’s just sort of a tin ear with respect to how we are heard by others.
The BWA situation falls very neatly into that “tin ear” category. Some of our resistance to the BWA echoes American displeasure with the United Nations. William Thornton’s comment on providing finances to the BWA is entirely similar with a repeated theme regarding the UN. But I think we generally would have both more expectations from and more disappointment with the UN than we would with the BWA.
I think the CBF time period produced bad policy vis-a-vis the BWA. I don’t know that it did. It’s just a hunch. I’m not sure, though, that revisiting our membership in the BWA should be done by today’s SBC. Perhaps after the old lions of the CR die off then it will be time. And I’m certainly not praying that God hasten that time.
But I think it’s a mistake to only consider our relationship with the BWA when we’re considering our responsibilities under John 15 and John 17 (not to mention Matthew 25.) John 15 carries the theme that Jesus treats us as friends–not merely servants–and then he commands us to love one another and additionally commends us that we will be known by our love. John 17 is the high priestly prayer when Jesus prays to the Father for unity. And Matthew 25–specifically the “parable” of the sheep and the goats–illustrates that it really is active faith–lived out loud and not separately–that qualifies or disqualifies us to be in the sheep or in the goats.
But I have a very natural allergy towards large meetings that pretend to get things done and spend a lot of time passing resolutions. So I certainly can understand our reticence at spending time at one when other Baptists get together roughly every five years in a Congress.
But the idea that we cooperate with the national conventions we formed and the churches we help foster? Really? That’s a question?
BTW: I think this is a MACRO problem for the SBC that influences Barrier #4 and #6. But that doesn’t mean it causes every one of our missionaries to be ineffective. They can still be effective even if the SBC as a whole becomes less influential in world missions over time mostly by its own choice.
The only question is whether we can please God by doing what we’re doing. I think we can. But can we please him more when we seek unity? Possibly…as long as we don’t sacrifice something more important in order to have collegiality. This is not an easy balance to achieve. I actually have been encouraged, to be honest, that the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church both have struggled in balancing the voices of Latin/South America, Africa, and Asia against the US and European voices. It clearly is a difficult balance to achieve. (I’m doubly encouraged that the African voices, especially, are generally significantly more conservative than the American and European voices in both of those “communions”.)
Greg,
Thanks for sharing your recollections and impressions gleaned from your childhood in Indonesia. It enriches the discussion. I am basically in agreement with what you share. I do want to clarify that, in my answer to BDW, I am contrasting missionary-national believer relationships before New Directions (and the decision to disassociate with the BWA) and after these two developments.
Actually, that is another interesting sidelight on all of this. Both of these events (New Directions, and leaving the BWA) occurred about the same time, and though I am not sure they were directly related in their root, in the consequences with regard to relationships with our national Baptist partners, they ended up being related: a sort of one-two punch in the gut of our Baptist partners, as it were.
Though at times there were also tensions between FMB missionaries and national partners before all this, that is a different matter, with different causes and different solutions.
Yes. I had a little trepidation about mentioning the tension in that it could distract from the point you (and Ron) were making since my memory significantly predates this situation. But since the previous two IMB presidents and a significant plurality of the vice presidents or equivalent (I think that list includes Jesse Fletcher, Bill O’Brien, Avery Willis, and Clyde Meador) served in Indonesia, I thought the historical perspective specific to Indonesia might actually be informative at least for contextual purposes.
One other event that I’m less clear on is whether the replacement of the central campus approach to seminary training with a “Theological Education by Extension” approach was well supported by the pastors or not. I thought it provided a needed opportunity for more experienced pastors to lead the leadership development of potential new leaders “in situ”. But I cannot for the life of me remember if that was well received or not.
By comparison, our defunding of Rüschlikon is an entirely different story but it had a similar morale impact to the BWA situation. And the unilateral nature of the action is very similar to the handling of the BWA. That one deserves a more thorough retrospective than my memory supports and it was out-of-area with respect to Indonesia so I don’t have helpful, supporting details in my memory. But to the best of my recollection it was more specifically due to theology even than the BWA situation might have arguably been.
I don’t think we can fairly handle the history of the BWA without considering the impact of the Ruschlikon defunding as well.
I did find a fascinating Baptist Press write up on a disagreement in Romania over a letter regarding the defunding. It shows that there isn’t a uniform “international opinion”.
The Rüschlikon ordeal all went down shortly before my wife and I were appointed with the IMB. I am not really privy to the ins and outs related to that.
One of the problems with the FMB/IMB before New Directions, in my opinion, was they were in many cases too beholden to the wishes of national Baptist unions, who, many times, were interested in getting what resources they could (financial, human, and otherwise) out of the deal. In theory, we are all working for the same team, with the same ultimate kingdom objectives in mind. But in practice, those things that drive the motivation of a denominational executive are not always the same things that drive a missionary church planter.
By the time Jerry Rankin came in as President of the IMB, I believe there were some changes that needed to be made with respect to how we related to national partners. In some cases, it was a question of them saying “Jump,” and us asking, “How high?” But, unfortunately, the way it all went down, in far too many cases, was a pendulum swing in the opposite direction. Instead of taking the time to dialogue and work together to a mutually agreed upon solution, national churches and unions were point-blank told we were unilaterally rescinding previous agreements and working arrangements, and led to believe we were no longer interested in working together with them. Once again, I am not sure this was the intention of the top leadership in Richmond, but that is the way it ended up going down as New Directions was implemented in many places around the world. And, yes, feelings were hurt. And, no, I don’t think the Lord was glorified by the way it was handled.
The impression I get is that some relationship-mending has happened since then, and continues to happen. But, in order to really work in unity as our Lord intends, it will be necessary to have a sympathetic understanding of some of the dynamics of what happened, and to take a humble attitude with respect to the future.
In the meantime, some (but not all!) of the “orphaned” Baptist unions, along with their seminaries and other institutions, have taken a turn somewhat to the left (especially on issues such as the role of women in ministry), as groups like the American Baptists and CBF have stepped in to fill the void the IMB vacated. This makes future partnerships more complicated. But I don’t think we can just sweep the priority of unity under the carpet. The Lord will have to give us much discernment.
David and Greg,
Excellent comments by both of you. I would agree completely with David’s response to BDW. With over 100 countries and many different Baptist and non-Baptist bodies we work with no two situations are exactly the same. Certainly in the traditional mission fields many Baptist bodies right felt the IMB was breaking a friendship and trust that had been built up in many ways over years. There was no need to handle it the way it was done. Of course in many restricted access countries we were working with whoever we could find, i.e. house church networks in China and didn’t have long term relationships. Most Baptist groups recognize that we are partners who cooperate in some areas and work separately in other areas. In Taiwan most of us keep strong relationships with our national churches. As administrator I worked closely with the national leadership but the SC teams related only as much as the SC desired. The ones who keep a close relationship were usually more successful than the ones than wanted to go it alone. David got the analogy right when he spoke of some leaders who drank the New Directions Kool Aid. It was as if they lost all touch with common sense and lessons learned in missions history. The IMB was pretty much turned over to CSI leaders who were masters at propaganda but short on actual accomplishments. That is not to say some wonderful things didn’t happen in New Directions. I mentioned before a VP of the IMB apologized recently for many of the excesses of New Directions and some effort is being made to correct them.
I was appointed in 1978 and served until 2010. I went through the 70/30 change, the church planting team change the New Direction change and a few more smaller changes. They each were difficult in some ways and challenged us to think carefully about our call and what the missionary task is. I felt the New Directions change was the most damaging and the poorest handled in the history of the IMB/FMB.
Greg, you might have been in Indonesia when one of the famous mission defining moments took place. In the 70s Cal Guy was in Indonesia to study their methods and make recommendations. At their annual meeting they voted to close the seminary and do all theological education under TEE. Keith Parks, Avery Willis, Bill O’Brien and I think Jerry Rankin were all there. It was presented as a great new innovation that would help keep pastors close to the people and make seminary education more available. The basic idea was good but as I understand it they did it unilaterally with out involving the national church in the decision making. As a result it lasted a short while and I think things returned to normal. Anyway for years if you heard Cal Guy or any of these missionaries talk they always brought up this great innovation they made.
(WSHEW: megapost incoming…in an attempt to respond to the hanging threads and hopefully close them all from my point of view.)
I do remember Cal Guy was a consultant and remember discussing him with probably my mom though possibly also my dad. I think that decision might have predated my parents’ arrival in 1973 possibly as early as 1970 (which would have been Jerry’s first year on the field, by the way, which is why I mention him as not in leadership). As an aside, my mom worked on one of the “programmed instruction” modules and with my fledgling language skills I attempted to work through it and it seemed promising for the specific purpose: i.e. a potential leader with basic literacy skills but not extensive education past that. (And, come to think of it, I think Cal’s name has come up in a previous discussion when I mentioned the same thing. You probably offered that name previously, Ron.)
I have remembered it through the haze of positive hope and expectations that–for better or for worse–is a necessary mental state for missionaries (and therefore their families) especially in single family stations. So I had some solid expectancy of it being somewhat effective. But my thought at the time was that it seemed to be most effective as a pastoring certification program rather than as a degree replacement. I do think the satellite/off-campus approach to getting training to key population centers is essentially an outcropping of the same strategy and it has proven demonstrably effective in the past in Southern California, in Houston, in Oklahoma City, and in Vancover, WA just to name a few of our satellites.
And I felt that was a reasonable approach (I remember Dad completing both an MDiv and MA(RE) and Mom completing an MA(RE) at SWBTS and didn’t see how on earth a TEE could bridge the gap that was in between high school and seminary…i.e. their degrees from Howard Payne) but I thought it was a HUGE lift to put a thoroughgoing program in place. I personally prefer a pastor certification program administered by a local pastor as a precursor to ordination. Roughly a Southern Baptist catechism for pastors with the result being the local church ordains and then recommends for college and/or seminary. My thoughts on that date to the TEE. But this would have been a specific cultural accommodation that addressed the OTHER elephant in the room–and this NEVER happens in Fort Worth–students coming to the city of the seminary and not returning to rural ministry opportunities.
I’m less clear when or if the Semarang campus got restarted though it wasn’t closed and sold as far as I know (it was the site of the annual Mission Meeting at least through the majority of the 70s). The Willises left for furlough when we did in 1976 and I don’t think they returned to Indonesia after furlough. His next program was MasterLife (which you could think of as a similar concept focused at lay people in the US instead of pastoral leaders in Indonesia.)
Which isn’t to say that I have any objective means of declaring whether the initiative either succeeded or did not. I do think you’re correct as to how much they involved the nationals but I just don’t have any memory of it. I remember having an opinion of it at the time–maybe from my dad though equally likely from another missionary–but I can’t get it to surface.
I do want to sum up regarding the controversial comment I made earlier about Keith Parks’ view on the BWA. I made a provocative statement because I felt that:
1. It acknowledged the general feeling of a fairly large contingent of Southern Baptists that our relationship with the BWA was–as William Thornton framed it–sort of like being involved with (and providing primary funding for) the United Nations.
2. But that I sensed that we lost the ability to sustain the discussion on theology when we withdrew and, since nature abhors a vacuum, our absence opened up the floor for every view that disagreed with ours.
So while on one hand I’m allergic to large bureaucracies and congresses–because of their tendency to vote on resolutions of perhaps notional usefulness with no actual utility–I worry that we lost more in effective influence in the global “body politic” of Baptists than whatever message or cost savings we might have gained.
One final closing thought: our visas in Indonesia were temporary visas and were issued via the Ministry of Religion and essentially had to be renewed every time we left (the term aligned roughly with the four-year cycle). If the Ministry of Religion viewed that we were not committed to partnering with the national leaders of Baptist work, the Protestant division of that Ministry could and did reject visa applications. That was heartbreaking when missionaries could not return. So unity has a second prize in addition to being pleasing to the Godhead: access to the nation when we partner successfully with nationals and potential denial of access when we do not.
Greg you and I are on the same side in this discussion. I don’t remember ever mentioning Cal Guy, my missions professor at SWBTS, on this blog but it is possible. As I said, the idea of spreading theological education out to where the people live is good. We tried to institute TEE in Taiwan and it met mixed success.
I am aware of the difficulty with visas in Indonesia. I have had several friends who were forced to leave. Billy Gaddis and George Trotter for two. There are several places in the world that the missionary visas depend on the relationship with the local Baptist body.
I would love to meet you some day and hear of your path since leaving Indonesia. I have 3 MK sons so MKs have a special place in my heart.
Thanks, Ron. The funny thing about memories is that there is a tendency when we remember them to filter in the best parts and filter out the worst. I’m sensitive to the potential of being accused of name dropping, too, but I just found that time fascinating and therefore remembered an extra portion of it that my sibs don’t remember at all.
As a quick note: in addition to the Gaddises and the Trotters, I recall that one of our missionaries considered revoking his US citizenship and applying for Indonesian citizenship in order to continue his work there unhampered by the loss of work visa.
I’ll add that US domestic political discussions as well as US foreign policy can directly affect our access to mission fields. And, specifically, immigration policy can directly affect access. Keeping in mind a “Kingdom perspective” when considering national policy as believers and as voters seems as helpful as a direct contribution to Lottie Moon if you consider what can happen in reaction to those policies.