Why Are We In SOOOOO Many Countries?

[Wes Smith]

For many years I've wondered why we have a culture in our Church of the Nazarene that seems to nearly worship our growth into new countries/areas? Why is it that we have some internal need to constantly geographically expand?

Over the years I have wondered why we haven't chosen, say, 50 countries in which we are plowing deeply. How does a denomination of our size have the capacity to keep a meaningful presence in 160 world areas?

I've traveled to several of our world areas and have been mostly impressed that nearly all aspects of NMI are underfunded.

What would happen if GMC declared that we are pulling back to 100 world areas in order to strengthen and deepen our ability to minister in those areas?

Friend,

Wes

[Bud Pugh]

Wes, I am not suggesting that this is a full answer to your question, but it is my understanding that we as a church are in those 160 world areas but we do not necessarily have missionaries in all of those areas. Some of the world areas have "outgrown" the need for missionaries.

[Ryan Scott]

We do hear those stories on occasion, like Bangladesh and a certain lawless East African nation than cannot be named, where a native finds the Church of the Nazarene in another place and returns home to start work.

I spoke with Chanshi Chanda at the NNU theology conference - he's in charge of French speaking Africa, I believe. He finds it part of his mission to make sure there's work happening in every country within his sphere of influence. I didn't get the impression they were spreading themselves thin - people starting new work are doing it basically on their own without much denominational support monetarily.

I do think some of the ways we publicize our missionary work is problematic. We all know there's 700+ missionaries out there, but only about half of them are employees of the denomination - the other half are raising their own support or working other jobs as tentmakers.

[Gina Stevenson]

Wes, I am not suggesting that this is a full answer to your question, but it is my understanding that we as a church are in those 160 world areas but we do not necessarily have missionaries in all of those areas. Some of the world areas have "outgrown" the need for missionaries.

Found the "laugh" button had been employed by my name. Did not mean for it to be at all! This thing will jump sometimes and you don't hit what you are aiming for!

[Larry Parsons]

Found the "laugh" button had been employed by my name. Did not mean for it to be at all! This thing will jump sometimes and you don't hit what you are aiming for!

Gina, What think Bud is saying, our missionary have work themselves out of a job by training the national to be church leaders and when that happen missionary are no longer needed.
Thanks
Larry

[Gina Stevenson]

Larry, my note had nothing to do with what he said. We do know about folks working themselves out of a job, and indigenous folks taking over. My note wad only about what this tablet does to me sometimes!

Gina, What think Bud is saying, our missionary have work themselves out of a job by training the national to be church leaders and when that happen missionary are no longer needed.
Thanks
Larry

[Mike Schutz]

In so many cases these days, people who hear the message of holiness through the CotN desire to go back to their home nation to present the message. God has placed on their heart the passion.

The issue of funding is, in my naive understanding, a different issue than why we are in so many countries.

[Greg Crofford]

This is an EXCELLENT conversation. From my observation, we are entering fewer and fewer countries using the traditional model of full-time church planters under World Mission contract as missionaries locating to the nation and beginning the "work." I can't speak for other regions, but in Africa, new countries are more often entered through the natural overflow of evangelistic efforts by local people. Sometimes (as in Niger), it's someone from a nearby country (in this case, Benin) following family ties across national borders which - in Africa, anyways - are usually quite artificial anyways. We tend to like to brag about the number of countries where we have work. Often, that work is in a very embryonic stage, perhaps just one or two congregations, but that's O.K. We should walk through the doors God opens, when He opens them, using whatever people are available to do the job. Big things start small.

[David Graham]

While I applaud missionary endevours from any Christian organisation or church, I would like to see more partnerships with existing "independant" churches or even other like minded denominations in other countries, rather than simply "reinventing the wheel" in nations where the gospel message (and yes even the holiness message) is already being preached.

[Dave McClung]

For many years I've wondered why we have a culture in our Church of the Nazarene that seems to nearly worship our growth into new countries/areas? Why is it that we have some internal need to constantly geographically expand?

Over the years I have wondered why we haven't chosen, say, 50 countries in which we are plowing deeply. How does a denomination of our size have the capacity to keep a meaningful presence in 160 world areas?

I've traveled to several of our world areas and have been mostly impressed that nearly all aspects of NMI are underfunded.

What would happen if GMC declared that we are pulling back to 100 world areas in order to strengthen and deepen our ability to minister in those areas?

Friend,

Wes

Wes, it is our mission.

While it is true that we attempt to streatch our missions dollars farther than they will stretch, our very best work is on the "cutting edge." We are a lot better at evangelism than we are at maintenance.


My guess is that if we retreated to 100 countries, we would then retreat to 75 and then to 50. etc.

[Gene Tatsch]

... We are a lot better at evangelism than we are at maintenance....

I agree.
And this troubles me (while you wrote "maintenance", I read "discipling"). I understand that Jesus does not command us to be involved in evangelism UNLESS it's part of the long-haul process of making disciples.

[Wes Smith]

I know that it is not feasible to pull back from 160 to 100 areas. But my impression is that we have developed a culture that simple would not be satisfied if we were not announcing the next country or countries we are entering.

Would it be possible to dramatize the expansion or deepening of ministry in a nation where we already have a presence and feel as good about that as we do about the flair associated with opening a new country to our presence? And, especially in these unique financial times.

I'll be watching with great interest at GA next summer to see if there is any change of philosophy about entereing new world areas.

On a related subject. Are there any nations where we are simply not doing well and may never do well? Have you ever played Risk? There are times in that game where a winning strategy is based on re-deployment of the troops to territories more easily defend turf as well as to regroup, rebuild and take new territory. Perhaps we need to consider leaving certain nations in order to invest more in nations where we are doing well.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

Wes, it is our mission.

While it is true that we attempt to streatch our missions dollars farther than they will stretch, our very best work is on the "cutting edge." We are a lot better at evangelism than we are at maintenance.


My guess is that if we retreated to 100 countries, we would then retreat to 75 and then to 50. etc.

Dave,

Interesting thoughts.

I will be watching to see if it is still our mission to expand geographical presence in a time of shrinking resources.

Better at evangelism than we are at maintenance? Interestingly, I had strong, strong resistance at one church I pastored because of my desire to reach lost people. One of the strongest people in that church forcefully insisted, "We are not that kind of church (evangelistic). Our mission is to assimilate people who come to Christ in other churches and help them grow." Heh. I looked in vain for folks who were coming to our church from other churches.

It is difficult to maintain a healthy balance of new people coming to Christ and making disciples!

Probably it would be best if we just removed the pressure of constantly having to expand into new countries. We don't need to jettison a bunch of countries, just focus on the strategy that will help us reach the most people who will grow in Christ and own the mission!

Friend,

Wes

[Nate Pruitt]

Better at evangelism than we are at maintenance? Interestingly, I had strong, strong resistance at one church I pastored because of my desire to reach lost people.
Wes

Wes,

While I have seen plenty of congregations shrink in resistance to evangelism that is a matter of the congregation, not the denomination. These days we find that often very few resources are being used in new mission expansion. There are a few reasons as to why:

1) We are using more partnerships. JESUS Film teams, various connections with aviation groups, and other non-profit (religious) organizations take some of the cost off of the general church.
2) We are sending out less general church sponsored missionaries. Of course one reason for this is the work being done in "Creative Access" areas (seems to be a red flag when money keeps coming in from a church group). Still, many groups are looking quite different than the traditional missionary families and individuals. Recently a group of Trevecca graduates went to Croatia to help reopen the Nazarene work there. (2010) None of these individuals were of the regular commissioned status. Likewise, we have many tent-makers in both "Creative Access" and other locations.
3) We keep expanding education. This is a matter of better educating nationals to do the work, and anywhere the church sets up a point of advanced education to best prepare ministers (and others) to reach their area. Ministerial studies are becoming increasingly available and it is greatly benefiting the general church. Since education has always been a point of emphasis for the denomination this comes as no surprise.

Economics are, to be blunt to the point of hyperbole, possibly one of the dimmest means by which to determine if, or how much, ministry should be done. Finances over faithfulness is a difficult paradigm. At no point is any level of ministry valuable for the Kingdom that doesn't rely on Divine intervention. Miracles are a big part of the Divine economy. This means that our time and prayer should be tithed in a similar manner to our money. The general Church of the Nazarene has no reason to stop expansion unless we are to admit that we have also stopped seeking God in prayer and lives of obedience.

Plus, we believe that Scripture is, "inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation," as Article 4 states. So maybe we're a tad literal when told by Christ to, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations..."

[Jim Franklin]

From personal experience it is mighty frustrating to be called and find that the church has no place in which to serve. It gets one to questioning there call and if ther faith is valid.
Or how can "they hear the Gospel unless someone is sent." "Go ye into all the world." It is most heartening that our church is recognizing the call of believers in various world areas to go to anothor world area. Bresee may have had only North America in mind when he said "Spread holiness knee deep over all the land." But I for one am most pleased that we have a more global viewpoint and places some years back that I studied about in Geography that I wondered if I would ever see reached by the gospel are now being reached such as Nepal and the Ukraine. Let us keep the roots alive so the branches don't die. So many other world areas are far more open to the Gospel than North America and we should expect distant world areas to send missionaries to our poor troubled continent.

My foreshortened career in higher education was probably due in part by people church folks who had an axe to grind and did not support BNC as it deserved.

[Eric Frey]

A couple thoughts on this provocative and important topic...

1) In my History of the CotN class at seminary we talked awhile about the CotN as a tree that in its rush to grow tall deprived its roots of what they needed to support the reach of the tree. The deeper the roots, the higher and farther the tree can reach.

2) Re: the transition from sending "missionaries" to training indigenous leaders. This is a great step. I have noticed, however, that the missionaries I hear speaking on deputation, at rallies, conventions, etc. are not nearly as interesting as they used to be. I remember being captivated by stories of missionaries confronting all manners of danger to preach the gospel. Now I hear from profs and administrators. I wonder how this effects giving?

3) I remember a friend calling me a few years ago. He had just walked out of an NMI convention. He was horrified. My friend, who is deeply influence by Eastern Orthodoxy, had just sat through a presentation about how our Nazarene missionaries had converted an Orthodox Bishop to Christianity. He used to be Orthodox, now he is a Christian! Perhaps we would do well to respect the indigenous Christianity already present in many countries.

[Susan Unger]

He had just walked out of an NMI convention. He was horrified. My friend, who is deeply influence by Eastern Orthodoxy, had just sat through a presentation about how our Nazarene missionaries had converted an Orthodox Bishop to Christianity. He used to be Orthodox, now he is a Christian! Perhaps we would do well to respect the indigenous Christianity already present in many countries.

I've noticed this, too. I don't know that I have heard this recently but I know when I was younger I read somethings that implied this.

[Nate Pruitt]

3) I remember a friend calling me a few years ago. He had just walked out of an NMI convention. He was horrified. My friend, who is deeply influence by Eastern Orthodoxy, had just sat through a presentation about how our Nazarene missionaries had converted an Orthodox Bishop to Christianity. He used to be Orthodox, now he is a Christian! Perhaps we would do well to respect the indigenous Christianity already present in many countries.

I find this to be a sad notion if we are to believe that ours is the one true denomination (and, thankfully, most Nazarenes don't tend to go so far). However, the real question is are we glorifying God or denomination? I feel like the missions book about the the Ukraine a few years ago dealt with an Orthodox (Russian Orthodox?) priest who finally came to freedom from alcoholism through the ministry being done by the Nazarene church in the area that did, of course, lead to a full openness to salvation as had not been experienced. There's also the somewhat amusing fact that Charles Finney ultimately ended up leading his pastor to Christ in a truer/fuller sense of the word so that the minister claimed that it wasn't until that time that he knew he had been saved. Context tells a lot, assuming that denominational conversion is equivalent to the power of the new life in Christ would be missing the point, though.

Edit: Felt I should add this- Sometimes we can be so turned off by the words someone uses that we lose the spirit of what they are conveying. As one who has his words often misquoted or misconstrued I have to say it isn't a great feeling and have learned a lot about grace by trying to not make others feel like I often do.

[Jean Johnson]

What I would like to see is the COTN not necessarily working in fewer countries but focusing more on "unreached people" groups. There are excellent resources at JoshuaProject.net. One statistic states that nine out of ten missionaries labor in countries already defined as "reached" whereas only one in ten work among those who are defined as "unreached." And only 1/2 of one cent of every dollar actually goes to working with the "unreached." I recently took a four-month course entitled Perspectives on the World Christian Movvement which is connected to the U.S. Center for World Mission. It really gave me a renewed perspective on what God has and is doing in the world. Incidentally, they are located on the old Pasadena Nazarene College campus. With the explosion of our work in some parts of Africa, I have the feeling that God is orchestrating our outreach to the "unreached." Praise His name!

[Ian Gentles]

Having ministered in London for thirty years, what I found was, that daily we were reaching "unreached" people. Just because there are established mission works in many places dosent mean all have been reached.
However your question is a very good one. Where would you suggest missions concentrate? Are there any countries where there isnt some form of christian witness?
Please note, this is not a post against what you have raised.

[Greg Gates]

Are there any nations where we are simply not doing well and may never do well?

Interesting question. My experience is not current but in years past, the American missionaries would go into a country and lay the necessary infrastructure... Bible college, camp grounds, districts, training the first leaders, etc. Then not long after the American missionaries left, the local leaders would grow the work tremendously.

Your question got me thinking about how missionaries stayed in Brazil for one generation and had about 2,000 members after 25 years. Now at 50 years we have 100,000+

The continent of Africa had Nazarene missionaries for 100+ years, with very few relative converts, before they finally gave authority to a "local." Now they might have a million members in my lifetime.

Certainly when Kansas City poured money into western European countries like Germany and France, the harvest was (is) tiny... compared to same level of investment in under-developed nations.

But we are not a business. We are the Church and we go where God leads, regardless. right?

[Franklin Cook]

I have been lurking around Naznet for years but Wes' post finally moved me to register. You raise a wonderful philosophical and strategic question. I was RD of Eurasia for 15 years during the "explosion" of growth into eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and South Asia, so I have given this topic a lot of thought.

The first answer comes from Dr. Robert Scott, former World Mission director, who used to talk about the Biblical principle of the mustard seed. We are under Commission to plant without guarantee of results. This falls under the category of "the mysteries of God."

Secondly, we live in a world that Thomas Friedman defines as "flat." With technology, travel, and access, we can no longer control exactly where or when we go as a church. For the most part, laymen in the church are ahead of the eccliastical mechanics, carrying the Gospel, the church, and even the denomination, to places we never intended or dreamed of.

It is true we have made a bit of a "thing" over entering new countries but my feeling is that this is mostly over. For one thing, we have done the "easy" stuff (which does not imply any of it is easy)f. The nations remaining to enter as a church are very, very difficult in every way. As to pulling back to a set predetermined number of countries, this would be impractical and impossible.

All that said, what we are experiencing falls under the category of a movement of God.

[Hans Deventer]

Welcome, Franklin! Good to "see" you here. Looking forward to your contributions!

[Wes Smith]

I am currently living in Costa Rica. What a beautiful, lovely, loving Country. We have been here just about 18 months. One would think that in our rich history here that we would have blanketed the entire place. Not so. There is no Nazarene presence in the entire SW area. For some reason CR has not experienced the fast growth of evangelicalism experienced by other Central and South American countries. Would love to see a nation-wide Christian renewal! This doesn't have much to do with my original question, just some thoughts about where we are these days. I am amazed at the impact the new age movement is having here.

Friend,

Wes

[Bob Carabbio]

It's called: "The great commission" GO ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel.

In the case of the AoG, we do "Breakthrough" missions, but MOSTLY we build, and staff Bible Schools (over 850 of 'em) and 39 Seminaries (in 2006), and train the locals to run/support their own churches.
The AoG is in 190 countries, and the U.S. Membership is only 2.7 Million, while the overseas Membership is 63 million which is split into over 150 autonomous "Fellowships" under the AoG "blanket".

The KEY to the process is concentrating on giving the "World" the tools to take care of itself, and not try to micro-manage the whole thing in Springfield.