Church Planting
Movements: Community Development vs. Access
The Other 99 Sheep
Cross
cultural (cc) acclimatizing for the glory bearer (missionary) can sometimes
reveal the most poignant of opportunities for deeper trust in the Father.
Without the foremost hunger in our own hearts for daily transformation we
simply and easily can fall pray to “doing ministry” the way they taught us in
our home cultures.
A
foreign laborer on our island had formed a partnership with a local ministry
leader. From the years of investment the foreigner had made into this leader’s
life he assumed that loyalties to God’s ways were at equal passions for
both.
A
supporting fellowship from another country desired to be further connected to
the Lord’s purposes among the Muslim Unreached People Group in this same cc
context. They labored with the on-site missionaries in prayer, resources, and
supportive ways. However, in their enthusiasm to be more directly connected,
though at a distance, they began engaging with the national partners without
coordinating with partnering missionaries on site. Long term workers, in most
cases, have much insight which can be shared in what potentially may or may not
be the most effective ministry approaches in any given people group. Indigenous
partners have this same great potential. However, we are discussing CPM efforts
among heretofore Unengaged/and or Unreached People Groups. In other words, this
usually means that there are no near culture or indigenous laborers available
in these groups with whom to consult.
We
have the Great Sheep Debacle to remind us of the desperate need any one of us
has, in humility, to continue to be learners in any and every cc context
ministry opportunity.
Roughly
$12,000 was invested by this foreign supporting Fellowship in what they thought
would be the purchase of 99+ head of sheep to be raised as a project to help
access a Muslim community. The vision which the national leader cast to them
was the purchase of these sheep would afford him to place another national
worker into that Muslim area as a consultant for the caretakers of the sheep and
thus have a platform for sharing the gospel. That was the vision pitched. This
same national leader had already been caught in financial embezzlement and
deception as leader of a local branch of a national evangelical Bible School.
The missionaries knew this information but were not consulted in the process of
the foreign Fellowship’s intent.
In
Church Planting Movements approach, this would have been considered a huge
financial investment to one area and would have been questioned as to having
been an effective “access” project or not. The foreign supporting church was
more interested in “just doing it” without considering or weighing the
potential effectiveness or not in opening up households in that community.
However, at this time in the process of ministry among this UPG, ministry
tended toward more traditional approaches. At this point in time, roughly 20
years ago, we had already been hungering for what the Church Planting Movements
(CPM) approach helped to frame for those of us on the mission field among UPGs.
The
difference between CPM approach to a community versus a Community Development
CD approach is simply put:
Access Ministry
versus Community Development CD
Goal CD: improve the quality of life of a community
seeking the opportunity to share Christ
Goal of CPM: Access
to a given community is practiced in accordance with Luke 9, 10 and Matthew 10
approach. The desire: rapidly plant house churches of obedience based disciples
of Jesus which plant house churches. Transformed obedience based oikos
(households) of disciples begin to transform their communities. In other words,
in obedience to Christ, in a process as these oikos come to know and grow in
Christlikeness, they will begin to obey His heart. In response to God’s heart
and the leading of the Holy Spirit they will offer indigenously driven
solutions to the development issues in their communities and beyond for the
advancement of the glory of God, while focused upon disciplemaking movement.
◦
CPM
marries nicely with CD. Households transformed in obedience based discipleship
begin to transform their communities
◦
CPM
is making reproducing households of disciples in a process
Funny thing is, all those 99 sheep
and all the money was “habis” (gone) upon follow up inspection by the
sponsoring foreign Fellowship. The national ministry leader who had convinced
these folks of the efficacy of this investment simply shrugged his shoulders
and just mentioned that maybe all the sheep must have died. Thus, the Great
Sheep Debacle of 1997 remains legendary in the minds of that Fellowship.
Sometimes
the greatest lessons learned in -cross-cultural CPM efforts come in the form of
two-by-four packages.