Lausanne World Pulse – Learning from Ants: A Look at Evangelists and Cross-cultural Missionaries
By Justin and Heidi Long
What about Today?
These examples seem to say that a called, gifted, trained and equipped evangelistic team (composed of multiple individuals) can impact hundreds of thousands of people—if not millions—over the space of a few years.
But are these the rule or the exception? If they are the rule, then why are there not more such people? Why don’t modern mission teams achieve this kind of success? Operation World estimates 200,000 total Protestant, Independent and Anglican missionaries worldwide. World Christian Trends says Protestant, Independent and Anglican traditions added 4.3 million new converts per year over the period 1990-2000 (not including children born into Christian households). So, it would seem that 200,000 workers were each responsible for about twenty-one converts. (This number is not quite accurate, as it ignores the work of pastors, lay evangelists and so on.)
World Christian Trends estimates there are 420,000 missionaries worldwide (including Orthodox, Marginals and Roman Catholics). About thirty-two million unevangelized people hear the gospel for the first time each year. Each missionary is responsible, on average, for about seventy-six newly evangelized people.
Of course, these are simply averages: the middle position between two extremes. Some missionaries see many converts; others see less. Consider the JESUS film. Over 5.4 billion people have seen it since 1979; 200 million of these have made a decision for Christ. There are 4,600 JESUS film teams, so this equates to about 1.1 million evangelized and forty-three thousand converts per team. This is, of course, a very rough estimate. The JESUS film has not always had 4,600 teams, and today’s teams are not the same as the teams thirty years ago. Even if we divided by thirty for an annual figure, it equates to thirty-six thousand evangelized people and 1,400 converts per year. This is significantly higher than the average cited above, but still far below the “heroic” levels in the first few examples.
There are more startling cases. The mostly Muslim Bhojpuri of northeast India are one. The state of Bihar, home to thirty-nine million Bhojpuri, is the birthplace of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and the hyper-nationalistic movements of India. In the 100-year history of missionary work among the Bhojpuri, there has been very little fruit. Bihar has been commonly known as the “graveyard of missions and missionaries.” Yet, in the past fifteen years, a church planting movement has resulted in thirty thousand churches led and planted by indigenous peoples. Over one million believers have been baptized. Some of these churches are tenth generation church plants. A dozen Muslim imams are now baptized church planters and prayer groups are meeting in mosques.
Still, the reality is that this movement—extraordinary though it is—affects only a small part of India’s 1.2 billion people. These one million believers represent less than one percent of India. In spite of the success of the numbers, a significant task remains: more than 150,000 Bhojpuri villages are unreached, work on the Old Testament translation is unfinished and—beyond the Bhojpuri—yet another 120 million Muslims throughout the rest of India still need to hear the gospel.
The Cross-cultural Missionary versus the Mass Evangelist
To understand what we are talking about, it is necessary to look at the differences between the cross-cultural missionary team and the mass evangelist. Here are several:
- Evangelists work in their own language. They have no need for translation. Paul, for example, was equally at home in Greek and Hebrew, and Greek was widely used throughout the Roman Empire.
- Evangelists are already contextualized. They do not need to spend months or years learning the culture. Instead, they spend their time presenting the gospel. Many preach tens of thousands of sermons. They do not need to strive at contextualization, since they are already part of the culture they are seeking to reach. (Yes, Paul did contextualize somewhat during the whole Jews-versus-Gentiles controversy; however, that is not the same as contextualizing for a society with which you are not familiar.)
- Evangelists have fewer security issues. Although some have faced severe hostility, most do not have the same kind of security worries that cross-cultural workers have. Most evangelists are local and “fit in.” Some as citizens have personal freedoms. Paul was protected to some degree by his Roman citizenship, as were the evangelists of the Great Awakening.
- Evangelists find it easier to raise funds. Those who are working in their own context generally find it easier to get funding than those who are working cross-culturally. Donors can immediately see the benefits. Thus, it will typically be easier for Billy Graham to raise funds for a city-wide crusade in America than it will be for a missionary to raise funds from Americans for ministry in Algeria.
Pages: ALL Prev 1 2 3 4 Next