Notes from Roundtable Discussion
May 22, 2006 –
Church-Based Teams
“This was one of the most productive afternoons I have ever spent!” stated one missions pastor as he departed. He had just finished participating in a Roundtable Discussion, sponsored by Paraclete, on the subject of Church-Based Teams. Thirty-five attendees assembled for the discussion on the afternoon of May 22, following a well attended luncheon to promote Missions Fest Seattle which will take place October 6-7 of this year.
The strategy of church-based teams has had varying levels of success and difficulties. As well, the role of sending agencies has been varied, from full partnerships to facilitate the sending of a church team, to no involvement at all with the church taking full responsibility for all aspects of the formation, training, deployment, long-term care, cultural adaptation, language and all legal aspects.
Serving as a neutral convening missions organization, Paraclete is facilitating Roundtable Discussions on various missions topics of current need and interest. This session focused on the strategy of church-based teams, bringing together both churches and mission sending agencies to discuss the pros and cons as well as craft a general definition for such teams.
After beginning with individual definitions, then table-group definitions, representatives from each table developed the following definition:
A
church-based team is a group called of God and commissioned by a local church
to accomplish the church’s vision and strategy in fulfilling the Great
Commission.
As part of the discussion, each table-group of seven individuals was asked to identify the “pros” and “cons” of church-based teams, from both the church perspective and the agency perspective.
Cons by Church Perspective:
Danger of isolationism
Lack of expertise from the church
Places a burden on field
Can create a sense of dependency
Difficulty in keeping consistent focus (turn-over of church leadership)
Church calendars
Narrow focus
Lack of experience
Arrogance
Limited Resources
Cost effectiveness
Limited capacity for training
Divisive
Lack of vision of what can/could be done
Competition with other ongoing mission projects
Money issues
Sustaining passion and vision
Some people feel left out
Required to pay own way
Vacation mindset
No post follow-up
Same leaders do it all
Control issues/founders own it
Self interest rather than outreach
Spreading church culture and politics
Huge preparation on the field to receive teams
Reinventing the wheel every time it’s organized
Reinforce dependency on the field
Cons by Agency Perspective:
Church only team can make cultural mistakes and not realize it
Can focus on little “k” rather than big “K” kingdom
Is often conned by nationals
Lacks sufficient follow-up ability
Creates extra burden on existing missionary force
Often creates dependency
Causes time management problems
Local church out of the loop
Personnel demands from church to church to church
Lack of connection to church
Lack of trust in overhead, funds allocation, leadership
Problems with logistics
Real ministry goals are put on hold
Re-invent the wheel
Trying to accomplish quick harvest without cultivation
Inflexibility of team members
Confusion of responsibility
Can’t choose who goes – gotta work with what you have
Unspoken Expectations
Vacation Mentality
Inexperience
Arrogance
Lack of teachability
Agency irrelevance
Time consuming
Resource consuming
Narrow Focus
Following the identification of pros and cons, the group shared the following answers to help overcome some of the “cons.”
Send a team leader who can make arrangements and do logistics help. Avoid help being conned by nationals. Local missionary can help avoid these pitfalls and provide accountability with nationals.
Have a training focus on deeper character and community rather than culture. Debrief is ongoing. Think of follow-through, instead of follow-up.
Prepare teams well for cultural mistakes and misunderstandings. Agency and church can work together for that.
When a church sends a team, have a team leader who is leading the team, making arrangements, etc.
Have one of your local people in that part of the world advise regarding customs and locating valid ministries.
Make multiple trips to the same locations with the first trip being a fact-finding trip.
Partnership with people on the ground to gain a larger perspective.
Maintain effective follow-through and debriefing. Give help in knowing how to report afterwards.
Form intentional partnership between the church and the agency for training and on-field care.
The partnership with the church and agency can sometimes be weaned away from the agency as the relationships on the field become strengthened
Develop a long-term focus even with your short-term teams
Invite agency leadership to sit down with church leadership to develop and refine the church’s long-term vision
The development of long-term people within your short-term team is a key piece. Look for people who went on short term trips who could become long-term workers
Visit and develop relationships with National or expatriate workers/leadership and ask them rather than tell them what to do
Are too many churches circumventing the agencies to send their own people and will that cause problems if we don’t make use of agencies?
Church leaders in countries often see people whiz in and out without communicating who they are or developing a relationship with these leaders. They appreciate a courtesy call. That honors them. They might advise you. They might keep you from making some serious mistakes.
Churches are refocusing the way they do missions, many moving to only short term trips. How are we going to have long term people on the field if we have only short term teams?
Pros from Church Perspective:
Deep relationships formed
Life changing impact for team member
Trust
Excitement and Enthusiasm of people
Church-wide ownership
Greater church awareness and involvement
Common vision
Transferable passion to local community
Builds relationships
Broadens people’s perspectives
Makes people go out of their comfort zone
Increases resource mobilization
People from church get saved
Enlarges vision of the church
Enlarges vision of the people who go
Gives passion to goers
Engaging your faith
Can provide structure with experienced leadership
Stores when back moves the community
Results quickly seen
Displays sacrifice
Advocates for local church
Encourages partnership
Leadership development
Share stories
Common experience
Support group sustainable
Save money
Ownership
Identification with missionaries
Aligns the vision of church
Deep relationships formed
Trust
Life-changing impact for team members
Excitement, enthusiasm
Church-wide ownership
Enthusiasm for missions
Grass roots effort
Reflects diversity of the body
Ownership
Opportunities to use gifts of body
Application of resources
Flexibility for change
Congregation sees God at work
Pros from Agency Perspective:
Church enthusiasm for world evangelism
Renewed passion for the missionary thru the encouragement of the team
Links to supporters
Streamlined efficiency
Programs set-up
Larger strategic perspective
Non-Denominational agenda – Neutral
Vision larger than the church’s agenda
Links partners with other churches
Relies on church staff/leadership
Directly use people on ground
Career missionaries may result from the team
Church enthusiasm
Renewed passion for the missionary through the encouragement of the team
Customizable
Economical
Bond to field – return as missionaries
Lives changed
One-time commitment
Expertise – training/logistics
Can be sustainable
Grass roots
Greater mission awareness
Increases giving
Development of missional people
Relationship development
Additional manpower & resources
Logistically easier for the missionary host
More long-term workers