Towards Truly Indigenous-Owned Churches and Projects
WHITE PAPER Christopher Bajkiewicz MSN RN CNS
Citation APA: Bajkiewicz, C. (2024). Towards truly indigenous-owned churches and projects [White Paper]. Published May 17, 2024 on www.crisbaj.com
Towards Truly Indigenous-Owned Churches and Projects
[Indigenous Church-Project Planting Theory 2024]
INTRODUCTION
This is a ‘primer’ in what has been referred to as ‘Indigenous Church/Project Planting Theory’.
Why ‘theory’? Because it rarely goes like this. Usually, the ‘national/foreign’ group doesn’t want to give up the resource flow that comes from having a ‘good friend from the US/Canada/Europe’, and the Western agency doesn’t ever want to pull out because they have become emotionally attached, and sometimes dependent on being needed and wanted by the foreign entity.
Many times, it’s classic co-dependence and enablement.
Interestingly, it’s not just ‘foreign’, but domestic projects and churches as well [meaning in USA/Canada/Europe/Australia]. The actual factors involved in Church-Planting or Project-Planting in any ‘Highly Developed region or country’, though hidden by resources and ‘first-world’ economic factors, all hold the same complexities.
WHAT EVERY CHRISTIAN CHURCH SHOULD BE LIKE
There is a clear consensus among Christian leaders in regards to church-planting, what a Church should BE like in character.
As the Apostles’ Creed notes, ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church’.
Important to note, this issue gets into the heart and soul of every Church, as well as its’ praxis and week-to-week behavior.
A common ‘skin’ of Churches, the ‘what every Church should LOOK like in the entire world’, actually does not exist.
Every Church should fit the circumstances it finds itself in.
This is where ‘contextualization’ comes in, and allows for wide variation based on historico-socio-culturo-ethnic-geographic-economic reality of THAT group of people in that locale. The Scriptures are very clear that this ‘wide and diverse’ portrait is actually desirous to the Father and reflects what Jesus Christ sacrificed for; it is eternally being declared of Christ the Lamb of God that,
“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals,
because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God
persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign[b] on the earth.” [Rev 5:9-10]
As well, the Great Multitude in Heaven is, and will be comprised ‘from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. [Rev 7:9].
Here, in the book of Revelations, the four pertinent and key Greek words are
Tribe: Strongs 5443 phylḗ (from 5453 /phýō, “to generate”) – a tribe (race, lineage); the descendants of a common ancestor, like the progeny springing from Jacob (Israel).
Language: Strongs 1100 glṓssa – tongue, used of flowing speech, a unique language used by a particular people in distinction from that of other nations:
People: Strongs 2992 laós (the root of the English term, “laity“) plural; a people, particularly used of “the people of the Lord” (= Heb ʽam).
Nation: Strongs 1484 éthnos (from ethō, “forming a custom, culture”) – properly, people joined by practicing similar customs or common culture; nation(s); may refer to unbelieving Gentiles (non-Jews) by Jewish authors. Some scholars note that the NT usage of ‘nation’ does not refer to geo-political groupings as is commonly referred to today.
Here’s the list of ‘commonly accepted Church ‘be’-characteristics:
Leadership under Christ
Prayer
Worship
Scripture
Discipleship
Evangelism
Fellowship
Ministry
Generosity/giving
As John Wimber (1984), founder of the Vineyard movement often told us, every Church should BE like, in character and operation,
A Temple
A Hospital
A School
A Family/Home.
An Army
Modern-day Charismatic-Pentecostal flows, such as those influenced by thought-shapers such as Bill Johnson and Dann Farrelly of Bethel Church, Redding would also include such things as the seeking of the Manifest Presence of God, and ‘power manifestations’ of signs, wonders, miracles, Divine healings, freedom from demonic powers (Johnson, 2005; Farrelly, 2017)
TOWARDS END-POINT METRICS FOR INDIGENOUS CHURCH-PLANT
Much has been written about the entry-strategy for planting Indigenous and Missional churches. For more on this, see the works of Allen (2006), Hodges (2009) and Williams (1979).
However, there is the issue of terminus of foreign involvement and complete take-over by the Indigenous entity. Currently, there is great debate and lack of consensus on what the ‘exit strategy’ should be, and what conditions would speak to foreign competency so that church/project planters can and should withdraw. Cleary, there are no commonly-embraced metrics in these regards. It would seem that, the effort to plant a church seems to lend itself to planting the planters permanently there as well. (Durene, 2013).
Of note, this discussion will also include Indigenous ‘foreign development projects’ with the ‘church-planting’ efforts abroad.
What about the ‘end-point’ of planting Indigenous churches? This is a critical question for many reasons, but I would like to explore two major questions resulting from recognition and elucidation of this issue;
ONE: At what point should the trans-local ‘parent and planting’ influences and control be withdrawn… especially funding and financial ‘dependence’, as well as oversight with control… forcing the Indigenous church-plant to ‘stand on its’ own two feet’ and gain healthy function in its’ own region, culture, people, and context?
TWO: At what point should ‘missionaries church- and project-planters’ who are non-indigenous withdraw from the Indigenous church-plant/project and allow it to struggle for its’ own place in the region, culture and context, learning how to trust by Faith that God will supply their needs directly, and not through the easy-flow of missionary-foreign-agency resources?
INDIGENOUS CHURCHES AND FOREIGN CHRISTIAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
In reality, the same elements and realities exist for Church-planters entering a context with the Christian Gospel evidence the same traits, characteristics and complexities as Christian Relief/Development workers and agencies. These trained workers and agencies… clearly ‘expatriate’ in nature… come from outside the region/culture/people group and enter into a given region/culture/people group… usually socio-economically in a ‘low-development’ posture and showing great difficulty in moving to self-development, for the purpose of ‘Planting’ development works… either Church or Project.
Previous denominational missions never left a clear legacy of healthy methods for ‘exit strategies’ (Durene, 2013), and this has been hyper-charged in modern days by the over-take of para-church and ‘parallel’ Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that have moved into a significant place in modern mission activities in every region of the globe.
Having worked in Baja México for over thirty years, this author has encountered literally hundreds of churches and projects in any given region of that peninsula, ‘planted’ by organizations based in Southern California. With over 100,000 expatriates living in Baja, mostly American, there are many who are involved in these NGO-styled works.
What I would propose as a means to formulate an ‘exit strategy’ would be to hold the ‘church-plant’ or ‘development-project plant’ up to a scrutiny based on READINESS AND CAPACITY metrics, as elucidated by sound educational methodologies;
Does the Church or Project have the READINESS to shoulder the responsibility and burden of self-care and be self-sustaining?
Does the Church or Project have the CAPACITY to willingly grow and thrive on its’ own, upon the withdrawal of the ‘planting and sustaining’ resource flow from outside the region, culture and context?
Unfortunately, the measurement of these metrics is highly subjective. The perpetual answer of the Planters and Project managers to these two indigenous metric questions is usually, “well, no… they’re not ready, and they certainly can’t do it without us!”
Like any parent with an older teenager can tell us, there is a painful ‘separation unto adulthood’ phase of growth for the Indigenous Church or Project. However, without this ‘break’, the ‘parent’ Church-Project planter can enable a co-dependency that results in the Indigenous Church-Project from remaining in a perpetually weak and dependent posture, wanting to enjoy the benefits of the continued resource flow with distaste for needing to generate their own resources by self-sustaining themselves.
THE METRICS OF ‘SELF’- READINESS AND CAPABILITIES
Some leaders have recently talked about distinctions in Indigenous church-planting or NGO project development that would show a healthy, non-co-dependent, non-entitlement, non-enablement approach to Indigenous works.
Firstly, to embrace that any Church or Project must (must!) become a work as its’ own agency in that region very early in the process, led and guided by locals and nationals, both in formal governmental and legal ways, as well as personnel and operational management. This infuses readiness and capabilities within the indigenous entity that would insure its’ health and growth, and early ‘independence’ as its’ own Church or Project.
Rather than a Western leader planting as a ‘Pastor-Church Planter’ or an NGO Director of any work, with a plan of rising up leaders ‘later on’, the placing of an Indigenous leader or group of persons as leaders in these roles ‘on day two… with day one as your arrival date’ has been proposed as lending empowerment and long-term health. This approach has few en vivo examples, and probably lives more in the ‘planting theory –vs- real history’ realm.
Either way, how the Indigenous work sees and values itself is crucial. These ‘Self’ metrics reflect actual success and survival characteristics.
In the modern dilemma of ‘dependence’ in missions, the only real way to stress-test these three characteristics is for the Western resource flow to pull out, and the Indigenous group to press into HolySpirit, find operational Faith and Provision from God, and stand on their own.
The three ‘self’ metrics of a truly Indigenous-Owned Church or Project plant we propose ARE:
^^Self-governance/imaging
[Español: Autogobierno / Imágenes de sí mismo]
The people… leaders and members of the Church or Project, together… govern and manage themselves in all matters.
^^Self-supporting/sustaining
[Español: Financieramente autosuficiente / autosuficiente]
The congregation of the Church, or the recipients and benefactors of services of the Project will generate and manage all their own resources and financing, including property. Dr. C. Peter Wagner of the US Center for World Missions wrote that, ‘until the Indigenous entity only accepts funds from nationals’, it will always struggle with dependence and entitlement, stripping the Work from self-respect and self-responsibility (Kortering, 2009; Wagner, 1990).
^^Self-propagating/replicating
[Español: Autopropagante / Autorreplicante]
This speaks to the capacity of the Indigenous Church or Project to not only self-lead and self-support, but to grow and expand its’ influence and benefits to the surrounding community that it is located in through the efforts of the Indigenous members. The term ‘evangelism’ is not sufficient to encompass the important aspect of propagating and replicating, since the term ‘evangelism’ is steeped in a great deal of historic and denomination-based practices that actually limit the scope and depth that self-propagating represents (Wagner, 1990; Christopherson, 2018). It also speaks to the issues of centralization of services and activities to a given facility and building, versus the willingness to ‘go out into the community’ and engage the people of that location within their businesses, homes, schools and social gatherings (Hodges, 2009).
If an Indigenous Church or Project can exist as self-governing, self-supporting and self-propagating, the Western ‘planting’ agency needs to exit, and move into a ‘consultation-only’ role. This new role is best accomplished from a distance, through digital communications and only a rare and supportive visit, perhaps annually. This form of distancing has strong precedence in the methodology of Saint Paul and his relationship to the Churches he planted (Allen, 2006).
The real issue of exit becomes the chasm between ‘can’ and ‘willing to allow’.
DEPENDANCY, CO-DEPENDANCY and EXIT
The realities of dependency in both church-planting and project-planting in indigenous and foreign works has, for many decades been the ‘dirty secret’ in these endeavors. There are some significant resources to study in this area (Dambisa, 2009; Corbett & Fikkert, 2012; Rijneveld, 2012).
The obvious resource inequities of a project being funded, supplied and managed by sources from the highly-developed West into a resource-poor region with people who are experiencing and struggling with significant poverty is fraught with trap doors. Many church-plants and NGO project-plants have been significantly impacted by the on-the-ground dealings of Indigenous players who refuse to give up a flow of significant resources.
What leaders of Indigenous church-planting and NGO-planting efforts have only recently come to appreciate is the power and quick development of co-dependency of the church-planter or the NGO-planter in these efforts. In truth, the modern foreign strategy is primarily the same as used in the Colonial era, albeit modern trappings and adapted terminolgy (Dambisa, 2009).
How can the home-based leadership of a foreign Church-planting or a NGO-Project-planting project appreciate these real, on-the-ground traps of any given work? Physical distance, cultural-knowledge gaps and lack of language fluency amplifies the disconnection of the ‘home office’ from truly appreciating the on-the-ground flourishing of dependency in the Indigenous work with the quick hold of co-dependancy by the expatriates (Durene, 2013).
FINAL ANALYSIS
As expressed, when an Indigenous Church or Project exists as self-governing, self-supporting and self-propagating, the Western ‘planting’ agency needs to exit.
Any Church or NGO-Project is not Indigenous until it is fully self-governing, self-supporting and self-propagating by nationals and leaders of that particular historico-socio-culturo-ethnic-geographic-economic reality in that locale.
A Church or NGO-Project is not Indigenous until all Expatriate involved in that Church or NGO-Project have moved into a ‘consultation-only’ role from outside the region. This will mean no physical presence of Expatriates, except for the occasional short-term visitation for the purposes of encouragement and consultation without the injection of foreign resources (Allen, 2009).
In closing, the many historic struggles of the planting Expatriates completely turning over a planted Church or NGO-Project to the in-location Indigenous people are not generally known by the supporting churches and partners. This aspect of ‘missionary psychology’, particularly the deep emotional attachments developed by Expat missional workers working in Indigenous planting is beyond the scope of this White Paper. However, a parting mention of this important and potent facet of ‘exit strategy’ has been elucidated in the work of Marjorie Foye, including the work of re-entry and Expatriate well-being after the full turn-over (Foyle, 1987, 2001).
END WHITE PAPER
written by crisbaj / Christopher Bajkiewicz MSN RN CNS
<<CREDITS>>
© 2024 by crisbaj.com/AdoreTheLord.blog
All rights reserved.
All Scripture references from New International Version unless otherwise indicated.
If you re-post or use material from this blog, please be honest and give author citation CRISBAJ.COM as the source… thanks!!
References
Allen, R. (2006). Missionary Methods: St Paul’s or Ours (1st ed.). The Lutterworth Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1cgdzwk
Christopherson, Jeff. (2018). How evangelistically effective is church-planting? Christianity Today, August 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2018/august/how-evangelistically-effective-is-church-planting.html,
Corbett, S. C., & Fikkert, B. (2012). When helping hurts: how to alleviate poverty without hurting the poor– and yourself. Expanded ed. Chicago, IL, Moody Publishers.
Dambisa Moyo. (2009). Dead aid: Why aid is not working and how there is another way for Africa. London: Allen Lane, 2009. 188 pp
Durene, Mark. (2013). ‘Exit Strategy’, International Journal of Pentecostal Missiology 1; p74-96).
Farrelly, D. (2017). Kingdom culture: Living the values that disciples nations. Bethel Church Publications, Redding CA. 231 pages.
Foyle, M. (1987). Overcoming missionary stress. MARC Europe (illustrated, reprint). 162 pages. ISBN 0961775106, 9780961775100.
Foyle, M. (2001). Honorable wounded: Stress among Christian workers. Monarch Books (revised 2001), 288 pages. ISBN 0825460239, 9780825460234.
Hodges, Melvin. (2009) The indigenous church. Kindle Edition Published April 1, 2012 by Gospel Publishing House, 208 pages. ISBN 9781607312376 (ISBN10: 1607312379).
Johnson, Bill. (2005). When heaven invades earth. Destiny Image Publishers, 190 pages. ISBN 0768429528, 9780768429527
Kortering, Jason. (2009). Working towards an indigenous church (4): A self-supporting church. The Standard Bearer 85; 3. Retrieved from https://sb.rfpa.org/volume/85-2009/
Rijneveld, Wouter & Hahné, Ronnie. (2005). Dependency in Missions. ID 10.13140/RG.2.2.30192.25608.
Strongs’ Exhaustive Concordance of Hebrew and Greek. Online access via biblehub.com
Wagner, C. Peter. (1990). Church-planting for a greater harvest: A comprehensive guide. Regal Books, Pasadena, 156 pgs. ISBN-10 0830714359 ISBN-13 : 978-0830714353
Williams, Morris. (1979). Partnership in Mission. DFM Publishers, 179 pages. ISBN B000LBZ3FU.
Wimber, John. (1984). Rooted in risk: church-planting. Found https://vineyardusa.org/rooted-in-risk/ (retrieved 24 April 2024)
<<>>End
crisbaj.com 