Two Reflections on GL ’71

by Lud Golz and Hector Espinoza

Allen Thompson didn’t receive my sheet of paper with resolutions on it at the close of GL ’71. Nor did I send it to him. But I did take his exhortation seriously when he warned against putting off what you intend to do as a result of what you have learned at GL ’71. These reflections express the burden of what grabbed me.

Allen Thompson didn’t receive my sheet of paper with resolutions on it at the close of GL ’71. Nor did I send it to him. But I did take his exhortation seriously when he warned against putting off what you intend to do as a result of what you have learned at GL ’71. These reflections express the burden of what grabbed me.

I must admit that I came to the conference thinking I had quite a few answers. I learned how inadequate they were. I also learned many new questions; some presented by the participants, while others grew out of impressions gained through dialogue.

I was gripped afresh with the enormity of our task. But as I talked, especially with the foreign delegates, I was encouraged to believe that our mission as the church of Jesus Christ was realizable in our generation. And that the local church of which I am the pastor can be vitally involved where we are towards fulfilling that mission.

The whole conference, and especially the service of praise and prayer, was a personal call to renewed involvement in the task of intercession. I’m going to insist that the missionaries we support be more candid and thorough in sharing their blessings and burdens so that we as a church can pray more strategically for them. I believe missions also need to sit on their missionaries about this all-important matter. Communications is the name of this game!

One thing which can draw mission and sending church together is mutual involvement in the approving of candidates.

I’m not satisfied that the pastor’s brief answers on the reference forms are adequate. I would like to have my whole church involved in approving a candidate to the mission. In fact, missions should request this of their candidate’s home church.

I know there are many problems that come to mind with this procedure, but if a church is expected to support the missionary financially and in prayer during his years of service, they should be heard at the time of his appointment. And if a missionary must return home for some reason, the church would be more inclined to assume the responsibility of caring for him in time of need.

What about the many young people who become candidates soon after they are saved and consequently don’t have a church home? Why not require them to find a church home? If they can’t adapt so as to belong and participate in a church here at home, how do we expect them to do so on the foreign field? Better yet, get them to serve in a local church for a brief period of tune. This will give them needed experience as well as understanding of their sending and supporting church. This should help them in their communications with the home base after they are on the field. I’m sure all of this will enhance their support base financially as well as spiritually.

Another way I believe I can help the cause is to counsel missionaries on furlough about the American scene. The culture shock for many of them is greater when they return home than when they go to foreign soil. I can tell them about our local situation, and direct them to pertinent articles and books to help them understand the national scene. I also feel missions could do more of this.

I have had the joy and privilege to visit mission fields in recent years. This personal exposure has sharpened my own vision and deepened my commitment.

The people in my congregation bear positive witness to the benefits this has brought to our church. This is one way to tune in to what is happening in the church universal.

I must share one reservation here, however. Something is lost when pastors go on group tours such as many missions now advertise. When a pastor visits his church’s missionaries, he should be able to get involved with them and the national Christians in typical rather than special situations. All are a little more themselves in such less organized experiences. Greater understanding will result.

A few years ago one of our missionaries was rather frustrated in his work. My letters were hard for him to answer. Finally he wrote: "Why don’t you come out here and see our situation for yourself. Maybe you can help us." My board agreed and sent me to give pastoral care. The results were gratifying. In subsequent trips abroad I have heard from many missionaries how much they appreciate the opportunity of receiving pastoral care.

Another possibility along this line would be for missions to have a pastor on their staff who would spend the major part of his time in a pastoral ministry to missionaries while serving on the field.

At GL ’71 a brother from the West Indies shared an interesting thought regarding this need. He asked: "Why can’t the missionary seek out a national pastor to provide this care?"

A good question, for both missionary and national pastor to ponder.

I talked with the pastor of a church which invests about $80,000 a year in missions. His church, however, isn’t at all interested in sending him to see first hand what their investment is accomplishing. No business would operate a foreign branch with as little accountability. Missions should encourage churches to be more responsible. They might even request that churches share their pastor for a few weeks to observe and serve abroad. All would benefit from this.

One of the delegates shared his concern that until we alleviate the tensions between sending churches and missions we are not ready to grapple with the tensions between missions and receiving churches. The pastors who met at GL ’71 felt quite strongly that missions took the sending churches for granted. I trust we were wrong. But to assure us, why not take action by planning some sessions which focus on ibis area, rather than add it to the program as a supplement?

As a result of my involvement in GL ’71 I plan to take specific action in the following:

1. Be more specific in my correspondence with our missionaries in asking them what we as a church want to know. Maybe enclose a questionnaire which would be easier for them to answer.

2. Next time I get a reference blank from a mission regarding a candidate from my church, I will bring it up to the congregation so they can express themselves. Send a report of their response to the mission.

3. Develop a section in our church library with pertinent information to help missionaries adjust to the home scene while on furlough. Also counsel with them early in their furlough to help in this area.

4. Encourage my church to share me with the missionaries we support and the national church abroad.

5. Be available to missions leaders to work on the church-mission relationship.

My major concern after participating in GL ’71 is that we will wait to implement some of tie very worthwhile suggestions until we have a whole new strategy worked out. By then the suggestions will possibly be out-dated. Jesus said, "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work." – Lud Golz

When a conference is convened under the theme of "Missions in Creative Tension," and the general purpose is to confront squarely the undeniable problems created by the relations between the mission boards and the emerging national church, you can hardly expect anything but an exciting meeting.

Add to this the fact that there were missionary executives representing hundreds of years of combined experience, together with at least fifteen nationals from every continent in the world, and you have the perfect setting for a lively interchange and surely an unusual type of encounter.

Many of us, however, were not quite ready for the disappointing outcome. Along with the opportunity of healthy interchange with dedicated men and brilliant missionary minds from all over the world, there was the frustrating problem of not getting down to dialogue over the basic issues. I, for one, attended the conference with the challenging question, "Will Green Lake Betray the Two Billion"? pounding my brains. I held a high degree of expectancy about what we as nationals and missions executives could do to reduce that haunting figure of two billion.

From the beginning it was not hard to observe a vast diversity of personal attitudes and concepts regarding the national church. Happily enough, present were the champions of giving the nationals a chance. Also, those that openly advocated that the time had come to give less time to administrative detail and more to evangelistic efforts. At various times we heard from others who insisted that the missionary should move ever onward to new fields, pioneering in new areas, and doing the front line soldier’s work. But there were many, unfortunately, still very many, that exposed the old mentality of allowing the national church some degree of freedom, but always maintaining a CIA-type control over the general situation.

It is to be regretted that instead of so much time being given to organizational structures, there could not more time be given to viable solutions to individual missionaries who are the cause of tensions with the national church. Or perhaps part of the time could have been profitably used in presenting suggestions geared to inducing mission boards to accelerate the creation of national mission boards, or about the very delicate issue of tensions between the mission boards opt on the field. There was very little time and attention given to practical suggestions about the way to reach more people, more effectively, in less time with the gospel of Christ. Should it net perhaps be wiser to leave the matter of organizational structures in the hands of the mission board and the national church, since it will be in her country where the adjustments will have to be made, rather than concentrate more on what internal modifications could be made in the sending churches of the home land, in order to provide the world with better missionaries?

To many of us nationals it was clearly evident that those often-talked-about "storm clouds in the horizons of the mission fields" are far more threatening and manifest in the skies of the sending church. Not that national churches face no threats or dangers. Most do, but it is also good to remember that many of those churches are young and daring, and like all "green horns," are enthusiastic and visionary and face the future with audacity and optimism.

By the end of the conference it was easy to discover at least one of the causes of tension. Out of fifteen national "consultants" only six received the opportunity of addressing the conference in a general session, and then strictly only three minutes each. By then, it was obvious to some mission executives and nationals alike, that unfortunately there still widely prevails the old mentality of having the missionary do all the talking and let the national do all the hearing.

Together with the disappointment over the neglect of the "two billion," mention should be made of the timely and well-written paper of Jack F. Shepherd; the uplifting and inspiring world-wide prayer meeting of Thursday night; the forceful presentation of the morning devotional lectures by Dr. Edmund Clowney. As we heard Dr. Clowney speak, cur souls felt refreshed, and our spirits energized.

A new hope flooded our hearts as we prayed that God somehow would move over the beloved sending church of the United States to provide the world with many more missionaries, but of the kind who are undaunted in their vision, strong in their faith, and sober and wise in the midst of problems and tensions. The national church is anxious to work alongside men and women who tabor every day with a high degree of expectancy of what the Holy Spirit is doing in them and through them. We desire the missionaries in our countries to be constantly encouraged and spiritually led by mature sending churches and the faithful prayer warriors of the home land.

– Hector Espinoza T.

—–

Copyright © 1972 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.