.jpeg)
Bryan: Modern missions is filled with different movements—people group movements, insider movements, church planting movements, and disciple-making movements. The discerning Christian seeking to learn more about missions will encounter these movements and have to sift through what is biblical and what is not. Those called to be missionaries might wonder what sending organizations they can align themselves with and what movements to take part in. On this episode, Pastor Chad Vegas talks about missions movements and answers listener Morgan Steele's question, which asks, "What are your thoughts on movement methodology and what are sound practices that I should be looking for in missions agencies?"
Chad: Thank you for your question, Morgan.
Whenever I hear about movement methodologies, I have the temptation to immediately write them off. Movements is one of those buzzwords that's been passed around Christian circles. And there are all sorts of words like this in mission circles. For example, if a contemporary missiologist wants to write something off as bad, he just calls it western. So when I hear a contemporary missiologist begin his critique with "that is western," then I know this is not a serious man. And frankly, when I hear the word movement, I also begin to question whether I'm engaging a serious man. But it's become so expansive it's worth really addressing the roots of it.
Movement language is not derived from scripture, nor from creeds, confessions, theologians, or any church tradition. Rather, movement methods go all the way back to social movement theory. Social movement theory is the convergence of several 18th through 19th century schools of sociological thought trying to explain collective action. For example, Karl Marx employed collective notions to lay a foundation for his idea that economic classes would oppose one another so that the proletariat will rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie. Later, Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, pressed this idea further into a discussion of cultural hegemony. So he argued that movements don't just fight for economic or state power, but for cultural power. Those of the new social movement theory school expanded this further to speak of movements such as the feminist movement, environmentalism, the civil rights movement, the anti-war activist movement, and identity-based movements like the LGBTQ movement. So to put it simply, social movement theory comes from the study of crowds, revolutions, class conflict, collective behavior, and mass protest. But it became a distinctive modern field in the 1960s and 1970s when scholars began treating movements as organized, strategic, culturally meaningful, and politically situated forms of collective action.
This language was sort of sloppily borrowed by missiologists to explain how we reach whole people groups. So now we speak about people group movements. Thus we have insider movements, church planting movements, and disciple-making movements. What's common between this movement methodology and the social movement theory that it borrows from is the notion that ideas, changes, and revolutions come best through more homogeneous units. So for example, if you have a group of people who have the same language, culture, and borders, then the gospel will move more quickly through them by keeping them together. That's essentially the supposition.
To understand the historical roots of this modern American missiology, we need to really go back to 1955. In 1955, a missionary to India named Donald McGavran—he had been there since 1923, by the way—grew weary of the missionary attempts to anglicize the Indian population. And that was a real problem. He was keen to see effective evangelism and the corresponding growth of the church as any Christian missionary would. But he was concerned that the approach of foreign missionaries was undermining that effort. And in many regards he was right. His first book, Bridges of God, began to build the principles that underlie the church growth movement. As McGavran eventually ended up becoming the founding dean and professor of the School of World Missions at Fuller Theological Seminary, his impact on Ralph Winter and the US Center for World Missions is profound.
His primary contribution is what we call the homogeneous unit principle. What is the homogeneous unit principle? This is what McGavran says in his book Understanding Church Growth on page 223: "Men like to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic, or class barriers. Therefore, our missionary approach ought to work along such racial, linguistic, or class barrier lines."
So let me provide one quick example of how this developed in movement methodologies. High-caste Hindus cannot socialize with low-caste Hindus without the loss of identity and social cache. Thus, we were told we should not bring them together in missionary efforts as this will slow church growth. I actually listened to the son-in-law of Ralph Winter as he argued that baptism is a western imposition that we should not apply to Hindu converts, as it will separate them from their family and friends and make them ineffective in evangelism. And we certainly should not bring together low-caste and high-caste Hindus in the same church as new converts, because that will also dissolve their natural familial and social bonds.
So what are the foundational commitments of the homogeneous unit principle? Well, McGavran argues that the work of evangelism among a people will be more effective if we begin without a requirement of change in those who are becoming disciples. This is what he says in Bridges of God, page 15: "The discipling of peoples is often hindered or actually stopped because in the very first stage the church leader requires evidence of an ethical change or dedication to Jesus Christ which some Christians in the older churches" (that being the European churches) "have not yet achieved."
Therefore, McGavran divides the imperative "make disciples" into steps. Step one is discipling. Discipling is to bring them into the church as homogeneous communities. This is important to the homogeneous unit principle and to movement methodology. For McGavran, ethnes are people groups generally divided around those lines which would have been socially acceptable for intermarriage. So in India, each caste may represent an ethne. Thus to make disciples in all ethnes is a reference to conforming an entire people group to Christianity. Now notice this: it is not to bring an individual to conversion or to faith. It is to bring the whole clan or caste or what have you into the Christian faith, as in, they see it as their corporate identity. Therefore, you're not expected to see ethical change or individual dedication to Christ at this stage. So think of American Christians — so many Americans see themselves on an identity basis as religiously Christian, though they have no individual dedication to Christ. He would call this step one of discipling and he would argue this is what we ought to do.
Then we come to step two, which he called perfecting. Perfecting is to teach them to obey everything that I have commanded you, not as part of initial Christian discipleship, but as the completion of the establishment of a Christian civilization. He says that if we fail to divide the Great Commission into these two steps, discipling and perfecting, then the gospel will fail to move through the people as rapidly as it otherwise could. This is how he reads the history of Christianity in the West. First we saw these people groups become Christianized. Then we saw more people become perfected in that they became ethically transformed and committed to the lordship of Christ.
So listen to his understanding of conversion and Christian discipleship from his example with New Testament Jewish Christians. He says, "The early church grew within Judaism for at least a decade. The Jews who were becoming Christians were not conscious at all of joining a non-Jewish religion. Had they dreamed that this was a possibility, many of them would never have become Christians." Bridges of God, page 23.
Now, note what he's saying. Early Jews were not conscious that becoming a Christian was joining a non-Jewish religion. And that's true because becoming Christian is not joining a non-Jewish religion. They weren't joining a non-Jewish religion. Christ is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion. How can this be a parallel example to leading Indian Hindus to Christ? Early Jews would never have become Christians if they knew they were leaving behind their socio-ethnic identity—that's what he's claiming.
Well, what are his foundational assumptions? You can become a Christian without any real change in ethical behavior or repentance of personal and cultural sins. You likely will not become a Christian if those changes are required. You will likely only see those changes in people in the perfecting stage, which follows a people group becoming Christianized or discipled.
Listen to what he goes on to say about first century Jewish Christians: "Even after they were changed by fellowship with the living Christ, they refused to accept Gentile Christians as full members of the Jewish Christian people. The bearing of this on the growth of people movements today is significant. It shows that peoples become Christian faster when least change of race or clan is involved. When it is felt that we are moving with our people and those who have not come now will come later, then the church grows most vigorously." Bridges of God, page 23.
Do you hear that? Think of what McGavran is now arguing. He's arguing that the Judaizers' refusal to accept Gentile Christians as full members of the Jewish Christian people led to the more rapid spread of the gospel among the Jews. In other words, the Judaizers are proof that the homogeneous unit principle works and thus it ought to be employed. Yet Paul argues in Galatians 2 that such behavior on the part of the Judaizers is gospel-denying hypocrisy.
So what sprang from all of this was movement methodologies. These methods are flawed at the most fundamental level. They assume that the human problem of sin is something less than spiritual death, blindness, and deafness. They deny the gospel is the power of God for salvation. They do not understand that the Holy Spirit powerfully works through ordinary people proclaiming the gospel to those who have not heard. And so they saddle the gospel minister with a duty he was never given. Missionaries are entrusted with the stewardship of the gospel. They preach the word. They gather believers into the church and they train them up. They do not have the responsibility of starting movements of people groups. So let's stop saddling them with these excessively heavy burdens.
In light of all I've said, I would encourage you to look at organizations like Global Serve International or the Paton Society. These are missions agencies that understand the mission and the method that Christ has given to His missionaries. They will support those ends. You can spot groups like these because they stress the following six things. First, language and culture learning at a high level of fluency. Second, godly missionaries who know the word of God well. Third, evangelism in the language of the people, leading to the planting of indigenous churches—churches that are composed of people who hear the gospel, believe it, repent, and begin to walk with the Lord. Fourth, raising up elders and deacons who are indigenous to the people for the sake of the future of the church. Fifth, providing a written translation of the Bible in the language of the people. And sixth, staying on the field for as many years as it takes to get this job done.
Bryan: To learn more about disciple-making movements, you can go to missionary.com/store and download A Brief Guide to Disciple-Making Movements. You can also browse our library and read articles and watch videos about mission movements and how to properly obey the Great Commission. If you have a question you would like to hear answered on Ask Missionary, drop a comment on this episode, get in touch with us on social media, or send us an email through missionary.com and your question may be featured on this show. And don't forget to subscribe to the show to get notified when the next episode airs next week. Thanks for listening.