Survey Tests Reactions to Mission’s Structural Change

by Kenneth Mulholland

The Community of Latin American Evangelical Ministries (CLAMS) was born of the deep awareness that if the Latin America Mission was to truly realize its goal of becoming an arm of the Latin American church, radical structural change was in order.

The Community of Latin American Evangelical Ministries (CLAMS) was born of the deep awareness that if the Latin America Mission was to truly realize its goal of becoming an arm of the Latin American church, radical structural change was in order.

A variety of factors such as disenchantment over growth rate, lack of local roots, incapacity to evoke Latin American support for its various ministries, and an inadequate control over the spreading multiplicity of services"…combined to make it plain to everyone concerned that new axed even drastic steps were to be called for, that our whole organizational set up needed to be restudied, that with the help of God the mission must somehow become more fully rooted in Latin America."¹

Out of a consultation held in San Jose, Costa Rica, during January, 1971, in which the majority of the 50 participants were Latins, the basic idea for the shape of an alternate structure emerged. It sought to shift the decision-making process to Latin America and to place its control in the hands of Latin Americans, while at the same time placing North American resources and personnel at the service of the Latin American church in order to stimulate her growth axed development.

Autonomy in Community (or Autonomy in Partnership, as some preferred) became the basic principle of the restructuring—an autonomy of ministries and of the decision-making process within a community of fellowship and a sharing of resources. "In other words, we sought to decentralize control without sacrificing unity of purpose or access to common resources of finance, personnel, fellowship, and objectives," explains W. Dayton Roberts.²

The lengthy constitutional process that followed the San Jose consultation involved the circulation of working drafts, not only to all the legal bodies and to all its ministries, but to each missionary as well. Mothers and daughters became sisters as the new structure went into operation during a twenty-month transitional period that ended with CLAME as both a legal and operational reality. Horace L. Fenton describes the emerging community:

Membership in this community would be granted to entities of three different groups: international ministries of the Latin America Mission …federations formed of the local ministries in various countries; and the supportive organizations.

Delegates from these entities would make up the general assembly of the new community, meeting twice a year to discuss their common interests, to co-ordinate their promotional and other activities, and to strengthen each other in the work. Apart from the prerogatives that they voluntarily relinquished in order to make such a general assembly function, the member entities would be fully autonomous, answerable only to their own boards. However, each member entity would be required to subscribe to the doctrinal statement of the Latin America Mission.

Moreover, while each world have its own budget, ail would adopt a standardized form of accounting, in accordance with the recommendation of the community. In the member entities the leadership would be in the hands of Latin Americans wherever possible.³

No birth is without pain to the mother and trauma to the new born. The birth of CLAMS was certainly no exception. In preparation for the July, 1974, general assembly, Genera Secretary Rafael Baltodano asked me to prepare a report zeroing in on the thinking and feeling of the North American missionaries in regard to the transition from mission to community, especially in the area of personal relationships. The conclusions that I reached were based on the study of 75 questionnaires, several depth interviews, and a study of numerous key documents.

It is interesting to note that the tabulation of the 75 questionnaires reveals surprisingly few frustrations with Latin American colleagues and overwhelming agreement that Latins should occupy the top executive positions, both in the entity for which the missionaries work and in CLAMS itself. Most agree that their Latin co-workers understand them, while only one person disagreed. Several mention that they seem to have more trouble with their North American colleagues than with the Latins.

Comments such as this were mot unusual: "The Latin colleagues with whom I work are capable, spiritually minded people in whom I have real confidence and with whom it is a pleasure to be associated." Nearly two-thirds of the respondents listed at least one Latin American among their three closest friends, although only 21 percent thought that the restructuring has made it easier to form personal friendships with Latins. Most thought it was the same as before, but only one person indicated that it was now more difficult.

Interestingly enough, nearly half of the respondents serving in Colombia felt that it was now easier to form cross cultural friendships, but less than 10 percent of those in Costa Rica shared that feeling.

This is not to deny that there are continuing points of friction. Language, lack of punctuality, and lack of frankness were the most frequently mentioned complaints from all fields, although in Colombia the use of funds surfaced frequently as a point of tension.

In spite of these points of friction, it is interesting to note that 77 percent of the missionaries believe that the future of CLAMS is bright, while only 20 percent are neutral or unsure. Three percent did not answer. A full 40 percent believe that the morale of the work is higher under CLAMS than under the previous structure, while only 12 percent felt that the change damaged morale. Twenty percent of the respondents felt things were about the same, or had mixed feelings, while 18 percent had no opinion—mostly those who were not on the field during the transition. Forty percent felt that the spiritual tone had also been enhanced, while only 9 percent noted a decline.

While there was no considerable difference among the fields in regard to the morale of the work, there was a marked contrast between Colombia and Costa Rica concerning the spiritual tone. Twelve of 21 questionnaires received from Colombia indicated that the transition enhanced the spiritual tone, while only 13 out of 45 respondents from Costa Rica felt the same way. Also, 5 out of the 8 respondents from the other fields felt that both the morale of the work and the spiritual tone had improved. Of the eight, no one felt that either had declined. In addition, most attitude changes noted in Latin American colleagues before, during, and after the restructuring were also positive.

In his article, "Mission to Community—Instant Decapitation," Roberts lists four areas in which the biggest problems were anticipated: budgets, public relations, personnel resources (I would call this placement), and transfer of property. He also cites the following plus factors as already discernible:⁴

1. The accelerated growth of nearly all ministries. The survey overwhelmingly substantiated this opinion. More than three-fourths of all respondents agreed that most entities are progressing under CLAMS, and of those, 40 percent agreed strongly in the affirmative. Other respondents were neutral or had no opinion. Significantly, no one disagreed with the statement.

2. A streamlined decision-making process. Several respondents commented on this aspect positively, such as one person who wrote: "Autonomy has placed control closer to the problem. Decentralization has placed responsibility where it belongs." Again, no one said directly that CLAMS complicated the decision-making process, although a few complaints about lack of promptness, organization, efficiency, coordination, and duplication – especially in the area of public relations – were voiced.

3. The emergence of new leadership. Again, numerous persons cited this as a major gain and only one person indicated that CLAMS retards the development of Latin leadership. For instance, a full 90 percent voiced agreement (and most of those indicated strong agreement) with the statement, "I believe that the new set-up provides more opportunities for the development of Latin leadership than the old system." One person did warn that "Latinization for the sake of Latinization" could deter the work from fulfilling God’s will and suggested that the best leader for a task be chosen regardless of his cultural background. Another complained of male dominance.

4. Fiscal responsibility. Although there was no single question that pinpointed this area, several persons commented on it. While one person cited "the evidence of greediness on the part of some of the entities," and several from Colombia mentioned financial problems, the following statement was more representative: "Those involved in finances of the entities have more interest in reading the financial reports which makes the routine seem more worthwhile, when you know at least one person will read it…I think everyone agrees that the fact that we are not building up debts is much better. This affects the morale…it is much better with the entities being responsible for their own funds. The fact that the general fund no longer exists no longer allows them to get into debt."

5. Decentralization of administration with an accompanying decentralization of loyalties. Several noted that the "mission family" was breaking up, many with sadness, others with glee. Loyalty is now primarily directed toward the entity rather than toward either CLAMS as a whole or LAM/USA, although the dual relationship that the North American missionary sustains with both the entity to which he belongs and LAM/USA does produce tension. Eightytwo percent of the respondents felt that they should be consulted with regard to major policy changes and the selection of the general director of LAM/USA. Less than 5 percent disagreed. This ambiguity, caused by the missionary’s dual relationship, needs to be cleared up.

6. Frank dealing with differences as a mixed blessing due to the severity of the emotional and spiritual toll. However, the toll may be even lower, than expected. Few expressed being negatively affected by the change. Most reported they were not affected at all by the change. A tiny minority continues to harbor resentment over the property division and feels that the moral and spiritual tone of the work has been damaged. A few complain about lack of frankness on the park of the Latins, but most expressed the idea that concerns and worries they had during the transition were not justified and that things turned out better than expected. From the Colombian field comes the comment:"…took over my job….I’m very happy. He’s doing an excellent job."

7. Less missionary resistance and more closing of the ranks than expected. Only one person felt less useful than before, although another felt "more useful, but less wanted." The survey points to higher morale and increased confidence in Latin leadership as a result of the restructuring. A Colombia missionary describes the new confidence: "There’s more trust. One national leader told me: `We often wondered what you missionaries were doing in all those meetings. We were outsiders looking in and wondering how you were going to decide our future.’ Now there are no secrets."

The survey did, however, point out some areas worthy of concern. Although Fenton states that the real issue " . . . is whether the changes will make us more effective in fulfilling our God-given calf for the evangelization of Latin America,"⁵ only 24 percent of the respondents felt that there is more evangelistic concern under the present CLAMS set-up than under the old system, and 18 percent thought there is less. The rest either had no opinion or felt it is about the same. Thus, although the structural change has undoubtedly bettered internal working relations, stimulated new leadership, fostered personal creativity, and impelled institutional advance, it apparently has not increased evangelistic concern to any significant degree.

Another area of concern is the apparent need to clarify the ambiguous role of the missionary who is under contract to an entity, but at the same time supported through LAM/USA. For instance, 95 percent of the missionaries thought they should be consulted as to major policy changes and the selection of the general director of LAM/USA. Also, more than 90 percent of the missionaries disagreed with a policy under discussion by LAM/USA to discontinue the sending of Latin Americans to their own continent as missionaries. Of those who disagreed, 40 percent did so strongly. Partly as a result of this pressure, CLAMS voted to recommend that the possibility of membership in LAM/USA remain open to Latin Americans. A subsequent motion to name a committee to implement that decision was also approved.

A large majority of respondents did, however, express backing of traditional LAM/USA support policies. Sixty percent agreed that the missionary should continue to be individually responsible for raising his own support and fringe benefits. Only 12 percent disagreed, with the remainder either neutral or offering no opinion. More than half agreed that seriously undersupported missionaries should be asked to return to North America after two years, to raise the level of their support. Sixteen percent disagreed. A third of the respondents were neutral and three persons had no opinion. Seventy percent favor the contract system as a convenient means of defining working relations within the ministries and only 5 percent disagreed.

Despite the radical structural changes and the tensions occasioned by them, Roberts has pointed out that the formation of CLAMS was not to be interpreted as a "missionary, go home" movement. The survey clearly substantiates this. Of alb the respondents, not a single one disagreed with the statement, "I am thinking of remaining on the field until retirement except for my furlough periods." Only 17 percent were neutral and one person had no opinion. Forty-one percent agreed strongly with the statement.

This was further substantiated by the overwhelming number of persons who, rather than return to North America, would look for responsibility under a different CLAME_ entity if someone else were to take over their present job. If there were no openings, some indicated they would begin a tent-making ministry or seek assignment from other mission boards. The very fact that so many expressed the idea that should they be displaced by a Latin, they would look for other areas of service under CLAMS where they could be of service should certainly bury lingering suspicions that the current group of North American missionaries are imperialistic empire builders whose aim is the domination and exploitation of their Latin brothers.

There was also near unanimity that the flow of North American missionaries to Latin America should continue. Only one person agreed with the statement (two had no opinion), "I believe that to promote the nationalization of the work, LAM/USA should cease to send North American missionaries." Fifty-five percent disagreed with the statement and another 45 percent disagreed strongly.

This is highly significant data in the light of recent thinking in missionary circles about a moratorium on the sending of North American missionaries. In some cases the moratorium is understood to include a cut-off of funds as well.

In his remarks about "The Moratorium Issue and the Future of the Missionary Enterprise," Ruben Lores raises the question as to whether structural change alone is radical enough, especially if it is not accompanied by a change of mentality on the part of the sending churches. He summarizes the thoughts of those who call for a moratorium as follows:

Missionary presence hinders the quest for self identity….Self-hood must develop without foreign tutelage….We need a new image of the Church….Don’t dehumanize me!….Let the church, not the missionary, be the symbol of the university of the Gospel….Place resources at the service of missions.⁶6=

Lores denies that cross-cultural missionaries are a theological imperative and states that to think that the evangelization of the world depends on them is an illusion. He writes:

Most missionaries work in administration, teaching, supportive ministries and the like. As far as church and direct evangelism are concerned many do not do more than they did as active lay persons in the homeland. I am not questioning the rightful place of those ministries. But to claim that today the evangelization of the world depends on them is an illusion.⁷

Interestingly enough, there was a very mixed reaction to the survey statement, "I believe that a higher percentage amore missionaries) should be involved in direct evangelism and church planting than at present." Fifteen percent agreed strongly, 25 percent agreed, another fourth were neutral, 20 percent disagreed, 7.5 percent disagreed strongly, and three persons offered no opinion. The question evidently was not as clear as most, for a few persons wrote comments that they were not in favor of missionaries in fulltime direct evangelism and church planting, but hoped to see a higher percentage of missionaries dedicating spare time to this in addition to their assigned responsibility. In fact, one person listed her biggest frustration is dealing with her Latin American colleagues: "They are more effective in winning their own people than the American missionaries are."

While it appears that North American missionaries are opposed to a moratorium, it also seems that there is a high degree of awareness that the evangelization of the world does in fact depend upon the national church, not the cross-cultural missionary. This fact, however, does not excuse the missionary from his evangelistic responsibility as an individual Christian.

What effect has CLAME had upon the relationship between North Americans and Latin Americans? Preliminary results indicate that it has been a mechanism of advance not only for the work of the individual entities, but also for the personal relationships between North and Latin Americans. Morale is up. Latin leaders have gained the respect and support of their North American colleagues. There is increased financial responsibility and a decided willingness to be of service wherever that service might be. A new spirit of openness pervades. People feel more free to be creative. There is a greater manifestation of gifts. There is a growing loyalty to the individual entities that are putting their roots deeper into Latin American soil. ‘his is not to deny that some scars remain. Cultural differences continue to cause friction. Ambiguity affects the relationship of the North American missionary with LAM/USA.

Three years ago, Fenton wrote of CLAME : "This is not . . a time to make reckless claims."⁸ That time has still not arrived, but encouraging things continue to happen as a result of the new structure— and if the results of this study are any indication, they will continue to happen.

Endnotes
1. Horace L. Fenton, Jr. "Latinizing the Latin America Mission," Church/Mission Tensions Today. C. Peter Wagner, ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972, p. 152.
2. W. Dayton Roberts, "Mission to Community – Instant Decapitation," International Review of Missions, LXII, No. 247, July, 1973, p. 340.
3. Fenton, op. cit., pp. 154-55.
4. Roberts, op. cit., pp. 339ff.
5. Fenton, op. cit., p. 159.
6. Ruben Lores, "Some Remarks about the Moratorium Issue and the Future of the Missionary Enterprise," Xeroxed typescript, p. 2.
7. Ibid., p. 4.
8. Fenton, op. cit.

——-

Copyright © 1975 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMIS.

Comments are closed.