Talking with a friend of mine last week, who has been a mission/church mobilizer for thirty years, the issue of Church Based Missions (CBM) came up. The traditional model of missions is a local congregation partnering with a denominational or para-church sending agency. Since the time of William Carey, sent out by Baptist’s in England and Hudson Taylor, who started the China Inland Missions, the model for missions for nearly three hundred years has been a top/down structure. Jungle pilots, Bible translators, church planters, medical doctors go to the regions beyond through the structure of a sending structure backed by local church funding. It’s a model that is slowly dying.In this day of high mobility, easy travel, a sense of adventure and discretionary funds, the trend in missions today is for the local church to be their own sending agency. CBM are, in many ways, the Antioch model, which famously sent out from their own ranks Paul, and Barnabas to take the gospel to Asia. The “adopt a people movement” has been a catalyst for CBM as the local congregation targets a region of the world where they want to invest their global outreach endeavors. The characteristics of CBM is partnering with national church leaders and sending out short-term teams to directly be involved on the field. Is CBM a good idea?
The answer to the question of validity of CBM is a mixed bag. The sense of participation through ownership is a strong argument for CBM. For too long the local church has farmed out their Great Commission responsibility to sending agencies. Missions is easy when people can just give money to a cause without being personally involved. The CBM trend generates interest within the local congregation to get personally involved through prayer, focused giving and even going. Sending agencies, the old paradigm of missions, don’t have all the answers, are not always strategic and because of overhead are not always efficient. More than anything else, sending agencies are distant from the local church. The CBM model makes the task of world evangelism personal, and this in itself makes CBM very attractive.
It’s argued, by some, that CBM is more biblical. Perhaps, though I’m always hesitant with those who site biblical circumstances as patterns for today’s reality. Paul and Barnabas were exceptional individuals sent out for a unique task. If a CBM is going to use the Antioch form for their model justification they need to follow the other components of that model. For example, Paul and Barnabas were well trained and tested before the Antioch church commissioned them for service. Paul was a Jewish scholar and Barnabas was a seasoned and respected church leader. Before launching their boat for Cyprus and Perga, these men were already battle scarred in ministry. They were not weekend warriors and their commitment was not just a vacation with a purpose.
My moblizer colleague lamented that there is little thought among the leaders of the CBM movement on preparing people to serve cross-culturally. Whether the overseas initiative is one week or one decade, people need cross-cultural training. While it is laudable for churches to take ownership of their mission involvement, one component the CBM should institute is CBT, i.e. Church Based Training. My thought on CBT is the subject for the next post.
