CASE STUDIES OF MULTI-CULTURAL MISSIONARY TEAMS
Mark Turney, MA
Due to the rapid increase in Assemblies of God (A/G) foreign missionaries being sent out from national churches around the world, and due to the fact that there is no comprehensive global coordination of A/G missions efforts, there are a variety of working scenarios among A/G missionaries on the field. For example, in some countries where there is more than one A/G national church, A/G missionaries from multiple sending churches work with different national churches. There are also cases of A/G missionaries working with independent churches or other denominations rather than with established A/G national churches. The most common model is where missionaries from different A/G sending churches each work out their own relationship with the national church without partnering with any of the other A/G missionaries on the field. In countries where A/G missionaries are working in cooperation, it is usually because they have built relationships on a personal level that have resulted in a ministry partnership. In very few cases missionaries have defined formal working agreements.
What I am proposing in this paper is that the model we should strive for is one in which the A/G missionaries on each field would, to some degree, see themselves as one body, united together to work with and assist one or, perhaps, more national church organizations. [1] Of course, for missionaries to work together they must be in agreement about several basic points. This will not always be possible. Article six identifies some of the elements that are necessary for forming a team. My contention, however, is that whenever possible, A/G missionaries from different countries should strive to work in cooperation.
Case Studies
In this article three examples of successful A/G multi-national missionary teams are presented. The information for two of these team case studies comes from interviews with missionaries and missions leaders who have been directly involved with these teams. The information for the third case study comes from personal experience. Two of these teams formed a plan for organizing a united effort on their fields from the beginning of the work. While the third team had no formal working agreement, team members developed a cooperative working relationship over time. In all the studies there were bumps in the road, and not every missionary was able to work well in a multi-national team. However, overall, these three examples of successful multi-national missionary team efforts show the value of partnering together with our fellow A/G national churches in missions.
Niger Case Study
In 1990, after the USA A/G had failed to obtain entry into Niger, the A/G of Burkina Faso received authorization from the government of Niger to register the church and begin missionary work. The Burkinan A/G sent in the first missionary, and shortly afterward the USA A/G, the French A/G and the Nigerian A/G sent missionaries to work under the umbrella of the Burkina Faso A/G registration. Later on the A/G churches of Ivory Coast and Togo also sent missionaries to assist the work. From that time until the present, missionaries from all six of these A/G national churches have been working together to establish the Assemblies of God of Niger. They have started two Bible schools in different parts of the country, and they have planted approximately 30 churches.
From the beginning of the work in Niger, the different missions came together to form what they called in French a Pastorale, to serve as the decision-making body for the new church. The plan was that this body would function in leadership until the new church was mature enough to take responsibility for leadership itself. All the missionaries on the field who were officially working with the A/G were on the Pastorale, and a missionary from Burkina Faso served as the president. As the church began to grow, and the missionaries began to train national pastors, these pastors and their wives also became part of the Pastorale. Any pastor who had graduated from Bible School, even if he was not yet ordained, was a member of the Pastorale.
The group met every four months. All decisions about the planting of new churches, the launching of new projects, the placement of pastors in churches and any other major decisions were made by this body. Each time the meeting was held; a different mission served as the host and was in charge of moderating the meeting. The group normally joined together for three days for prayer and ministry in the Word, as well as for business sessions, where they discussed the work and made decisions. Decisions were made seeking a consensus among the group. If there was an issue on which there was no consensus, the group usually tabled that item until the next meeting, in order to give everyone time to pray about it.
There was a second governing body after the Pastorale called the Missions Committee. It was made up of a representative from each of the missions working together in Niger. This body oversaw the two Bible schools and served as the credentialing committee for the national church. They were responsible for approving ministerial credentials and dealing with disciplinary cases when necessary.
All six of the missions worked together to draw up a mission agreement document that served as a basic guideline for the working arrangement between them. They all signed the agreement, committing to work together for the growth of the same national church. At this point in time, the missionaries continued to have a strong role in the leadership of the church because, while there were a number of pastors who were being trained, few of them had been ordained. However, the goal was to nationalize leadership once there was a larger group of ordained national pastors.
One illustration of the kind of cooperation among the missionaries in Niger was seen in the Bible school. The Missions Committee directed the Bible schools, and there were missionaries from each of the six missions who were involved in teaching. No single mission was controlling the training program. At one point the Missions Committee made the decision to purchase property for the Bible school site. Both the USA and French missions contributed financially to the purchase of the land, and Burkina Faso contributed by sending teams to help with the construction.
Another illustration of cooperation that was taking place in Niger was in the area of church planting. Each mission was involved in planting churches and had freedom to do so according to their own ability and desire. The American mission helped in purchasing tabernacles to assist with some of the new churches. However, rather than deciding where to place the tabernacles themselves, the American missionaries asked the Pastorale to make that decision. The Burkinan church partnered in these ventures by sending construction teams to set up some of the tabernacles.
Each of the six A/G missions working in Niger had the freedom to work according to their own strategies in church planting, and, while there was solid coordination at the level of the Pastorale and Missions Committees, each group was given the freedom to start local churches. While unified in doctrine, the missionaries had to work through some of their differences in practice. However, they seemed to allow each local church the freedom to express itself in worship in the way it desired. Some of the churches, for instance, took communion every Sunday, while others did so less often. Some of the churches were very lively in their worship, while others were more subdued. It would seem that the missionaries were so committed to working together in unity that they did not allow small differences in outward expressions of their faith to become obstacles to their cooperation in the goal of planting churches.
Financially all the missions contributed to a common fund. They did not all contribute the same amount, since not all the missions had the same financial support. However, each one contributed, and the Missions Committee then decided how to use these funds to help the church. Usually the funds were used in new church planting projects and for scholarships for training pastors.
One of the main themes that was expressed by the missionaries interviewed was that all the A/G missions in Niger had made a decision to work together to plant only one national church, and they constantly worked toward this goal. It seemed that a key element to the success of the partnership was the fact that all six missions wanted the partnership and were committed to working through their differences. This is not to say that all the missionaries always agreed on everything. There were disagreements at times, and not all missionaries remained in Niger, but the partnership of all six missions remained solid for many years.
Cambodia Case Study
Cambodia is another country where a partnership has developed among missionaries from several different A/G national churches. In 1990 the USA A/G was the first A/G mission to receive permission from the Cambodian government to send missionaries to their nation. The first missionaries were allowed to enter the country through the avenue of compassion ministries. Shortly after the USA A/G missionaries entered Cambodia, the Philippine A/G, which was just then emerging as a mission-sending church, began sending missionaries to Cambodia to partner with the American missionaries. Thereafter the number of A/G national churches joining the team in Cambodia grew.
Missionaries from the following nine A/G national churches worked together in Cambodia: Australia, Finland, France, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore and the USA. There were approximately 65 adult missionaries represented by these nine groups. Together the American, French and Philippine missionaries made up the majority of the group. The missionaries were involved in three main areas of work: 1) compassion ministries, including an orphanage, several elementary schools, medical clinics and micro-enterprise development programs; 2) church planting; and 3) training, including a traditional Bible School, as well as several lay-training programs.
After thirteen years of A/G missions work, Cambodia had an A/G national church organization with a dozen churches and a number of preaching points where new congregations were being started. The church’s national executive committee is made up of five elected members, as well as two missionary counselors who were chosen by the missionary body. In addition to serving in an advisory role to the executive committee, these counselors served as a liaison between the committee and the missionary body. While the missionaries chose the counselors, the national church set two criteria for the counselors: they must be fluent in the language and well adapted to the culture, and they must have church planting experience. The missionary counselors who served on the board came from the USA AG and the French A/G.
In the mid 1990’s, as more countries began sending A/G missionaries to Cambodia, a formal structure was developed to integrate all the missionaries into one Field Fellowship. Because the American A/G was the first group to enter the country and had the largest number of missionaries, they took a leading role in encouraging a team structure for the field. A Board of Administration was formed with representatives from the four A/G churches who had four or more missionaries in Cambodia. This board developed a policy manual for giving direction to ministries and projects on the field. In addition to the Board of Administration, which oversaw all of the ministries on the field, a working group was formed for each area of ministry. These working groups united the efforts of all the missionaries working in a particular area of ministry. For instance, all missionaries working in compassion ministries formed one working group, while all the missionaries working in education and training formed another. The missionaries in each group met together to strategize and make plans for those ministries. All ministry and project proposals were submitted, first of all, to the working group and then to the Board of Administration.
The field attempted to follow this structure of coordination and approvals for ministry projects for several years, but with time the Board of Administration saw that it was not working well. In many cases the process of approvals for projects was not being followed. Eventually the decision was made to dissolve the Board of Administration. However, the entire group of missionaries continued to gather together annually for a meeting to strategize and talk together about the work as a whole. They continued meeting together twice a year for a time of prayer and fellowship with no business agenda.
While the overarching, formal partnership structure and coordination of ministry projects did not last, on a more practical, individual ministry level much cooperation took place among the A/G missionaries in Cambodia. It became apparent to everyone that what really made partnerships work were the individual working relationships that developed around specific ministries. For instance, there were church-planting teams made up of missionaries from different countries who worked well together. There was a team of Japanese, Filipino and American missionaries planting churches together. There was another team of New Zealanders and Americans planting a church together. There was yet another team of four single missionary women, all from different countries, who worked together to plant a church.
There was also partnership in the area of training. Those missionaries with a burden for Bible school ministry formed a team. The director of the Bible School was a Filipino missionary, and the administration and faculty of the school were made up of Filipino, Australian and American missionaries. There was a team of Filipino, American and Australian missionaries involved in lay leadership training, using a program called Lay Leadership International.
Missionaries also cooperated in the area of compassion ministries. The USA A/G opened a medical clinic in the early stages of the work in Cambodia, and the A/G of the Philippines supplied a husband and wife doctor team to work in the clinic. There was a French missionary leading a team of missionaries from five countries who work with micro-enterprise development projects. In each of these cases teams formed around ministry focuses that brought the team members together in a specific, practical partnership.
Cooperation among missionaries helped in the areas of mentorship, language and culture learning. One of the Filipino missionaries learned the language very well and helped several of the American missionaries in their language learning. A single missionary from Australia used her language skills and cultural knowledge to help mentor an American single missionary during her first term.
Partnership in Cambodia went through a process of evolving toward a formal, overarching structure and then evolving further into a less formal, relational structure centered on ministry teams. The forming of small teams around specific ministries seemed to be one of the keys that made partnership work well in Cambodia. One other factor that contributed significantly to the success of A/G partnership in Cambodia that is worth noting, is the fact that the missions leadership from several of the participating A/G churches met together on several occasions to talk about the work and their commitment to cooperation in Cambodia. [2]
Equatorial Guinea Case Study
The last case study focuses on the A/G work in Equatorial Guinea, Central Africa where I served as a missionary from 1992-2003. In 1987 the USA A/G received permission to enter Equatorial Guinea and open the first church. Two rookie American missionary couples were the first to volunteer to go. Since Equatorial Guinea was a Spanish-speaking country, the USA A/G made formal requests for help from national churches in Central and South America. But at that time there was not yet a strong emphasis on foreign missions in most Latin American A/G churches, and there was no response to the request made by the American church.
The history of multi-national missions cooperation in Equatorial Guinea is different from Niger and Cambodia in that, for the first several years, there were only USA A/G missionaries in the country. During the early years of the work in Equatorial Guinea the American missionaries started the first churches and established a basic church structure. When missionaries from Nigeria and Argentina arrived in 1992, they found an existing church structure that was under the leadership of the USA A/G mission. These new missionaries immediately sought out the American missionaries and made it clear that they wanted to identify and work with the existing A/G church.
While these missionaries chose to integrate into the existing church structure, this process was, at times, difficult. The American missionaries had not anticipated their arrival or received any instruction or training on how to relate to their colleagues from other nations. Consequently, there was no clear plan as to how everyone would work together as a multi-national team. As the new missionaries busied themselves with settling into the country and launching out into ministry, relationships with the American missionaries seemed to develop naturally over time. The new missionaries had certain practical needs that the established missionaries were able to meet, and the new missionaries began to meet ministry needs that were important to the church.
By the late 1990’s, short- and long-term A/G missionaries from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Spain and Gabon arrived in Equatorial Guinea. In every case except one, the new missionaries immediately sought out the American missionaries and the established church. The American mission continued in the lead role of the work for 10 years. During this time, whenever A/G missionaries from other countries arrived, they found that to work with the A/G of Equatorial Guinea, they had to work with, and to some degree under, the USA A/G. While relationships among the missionaries were generally amicable, and there was plenty of work to keep everyone busy in ministry, there was never any type of formal structure or agreement between the missionaries outlining how they would relate to and work with each other. In fact, there were not any joint missionary meetings to discuss ministry plans and projects.
During this time, however, the USA missionaries regularly joined together for Field Fellowship meetings. This created tensions with some of the other missionaries who felt like the Americans, who were also in leadership of the national church, would go off by themselves and make all the plans and then come back to present these plans to them and the national pastors at the same time. Some of the missionaries seemed to overlook these inequities; others gently voiced their concerns; and still others began to deeply resent the situation. This resentment began to surface in joint meetings between missionaries and national pastors. Sadly, in one case the young church found itself in the middle of a very ugly conflict that resulted in the expulsion of one missionary from the country. The conflict was so serious that the national church was pressured into the position of “taking sides”. It was a very painful experience for the church. Eventually, some of the national pastors sat down with the missionaries and expressed to them their frustration with the conflicts, urging the missionaries to work together in unity.
As painful as that situation was, it was an exception in the history of the development of multi-national cooperation on the field. For the most part, good personal relationships led to amicable cooperation. The missionaries shared a common purpose and were there for each other in good times and bad. There was a tremendous amount of respect among the missionaries who came from other countries for the senior missionary on the field. He was held in honor as the founder of the work. Good relationships resulted in much productive work during that time.
However, because the missionaries’ relationships to one another were informal,
With no defined structure to create accountability to one another, cooperation was based only on individual relationships. As a result, in the cases where good personal relationships between missionaries developed, there was communication and a semblance of cohesiveness. But where there was a lack of personal relationship, there were often misunderstandings and conflicts, some which became very explosive.
From 1998 to the present, there has been marked improvement in the relationships and cooperation of the team in Equatorial Guinea. As a result of that one particularly explosive conflict that affected the church, the USA A/G missionary team realized that they needed to make a greater effort to include the other missionaries in ministry planning, and from that time they began to do so. While somewhat sporadic, meetings began to be held where all the missionaries came together.
During a two-year process from mid 1998 to mid 2000, the missionaries led the
national church in the steps of developing a constitution and bylaws and holding the first General Council meeting where national executives where elected. One major step forward in partnership happened in this process of nationalizing the leadership of the national church. During the two years of preparation for transferring leadership from the missionaries to the national church, a transitional executive committee was selected which included three ordained Guinean pastors and four missionaries. One of the four missionaries chosen for this committee was from Latin America.
Missionary partnerships centered around certain ministries and goals have greatly blessed the work in Equatorial Guinea. Missionaries from the USA, Costa Rica, Argentina and Gabon have all worked together in the planting and construction of several churches. The Bible school was founded by American missionaries partnering together with a single missionary from Argentina. Missionaries from Argentina, Costa Rica, Spain and the USA have taught in the school.
One wonderful story of the results of partnership among missionaries had to do with the A/G missionaries from Gabon, a country on the southern border of Equatorial Guinea. Rather than partnering with the A/G of Equatorial Guinea, the A/G of Gabon entered the country and started its own national church in the mid 1990’s. The missionary team working with the A/G of Equatorial Guinea, however, made the decision to work with the Gabonese missionaries and help them in their work, even though it was for a separate church organization. Beginning in 1997, the missionary team preached in their churches, provided literature for evangelism, and helped with construction projects. The Gabonese church began sending their workers to the A/G Bible school. In 2003, as a result of the relationships built through this partnership, the A/G of Gabon made the decision that their churches in Equatorial Guinea should unite with the Assemblies of God to form one national church. In March of 2003, the union was made official at a joyous celebration witnessed by government officials.
The story of the development of a multi-national team in Equatorial Guinea was a learn-as-you-go process. Some lessons were learned the hard way. By God’s grace the missionary team learned from their mistakes, forgave, grew and moved on. Today the national church leadership of Equatorial Guinea continues to seek the active participation of missionaries from around the world. While they are the ones who officially receive these new missionaries, there continues to be a spirit of teamwork between all the A/G missionaries on the field.
[1] I mention this because on some fields missionaries work with more than one national church organization. For example, in Zambia the A/G missionary team works with three Pentecostal groups.
[2] Mission leadership refers to regional mission leadership from participating national church offices and not just team leaders in the country.
