Part 2 of porch conversation with Franklin Cook, Chuck Gailey, and Louie Bustle.
DW: Let’s talk about change. Historically there are “hinge” events, people or movements which change the course of missions. In 30 years from now, what do you think people will look back on and say were the “hinge” moment(s) in Nazarene Missions between 1965 and 2010?
FC: I have often reflected on "hinge events" but back to 1898, not to 1965. Every time I come up with a list of hinge events, or turning points, it is a bit different. Since you have given 1965 as a date, I am going to "fudge" a bit and go back to 1945, the end of World War II.
1945 to 1960 was a period of "recovery" from the War. After being unable to travel, there was a rush to deploy many new missionaries. In 1958, the BGS decided to commission 50 missionaries to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the denomination. This did not prove to be a positive decision because the quality and training of that number was not sustained, and there was no strategic plan for proper use of that number of missionaries.
1960 was the first hinge point. This was the election of George Coulter as WMDirector. He came with an entirely new point of view and had a unique ability to build morale and team esprit 'd corp. He initiated for the first time a program to actually train missionaries in a systematic way.
During this time, Dr. Paul Orjala emerged as a missiologist in the denomination, perhaps the first so trained. He was utilized for many of the early training efforts. Dr. Coulter wanted to shift from a "haphazard" approach of missionary deployment to a more professional corp of missionaries.
1964 was a hinge point. Nazarene Evangelistic Ambassadors was created which for the first time utilized college personnel under World Mission sponsorship. As odd as it now seems, then it was considered a risky innovation to put college age personnel on the field.
This program evolved in to Student Mission Corp (first called the Youth Assistance Missionary Corp) which then evolved in to Youth in Mission, and before long, short term and volunteer work became a norm, not an exception.
1972 was a hinge event. In Florida, immediately following a General Assembly, the first gathering of "national District Superintendents" was held with the World Mission Director without the presence of any missionary personnel whatsoever. This was considered revolutionary at the time because it gave World Mission direct and immediate contact with the national church without interpretation by a missionary. It represented a huge shift in thinking.
1974 and following were hinge events. The denomination declared that we would be an international community of faith. While this had been assumed by many, and while most did not really know what this meant (perhaps we still don't!), it was, at least, an official declaration. The management of this led to the development of Regions and regional offices, a process of regionalization which has elements of Federation. One can almost divide Nazarene missions into two parts, pre and post Regions.
1981 might, and I emphasize might, be considered a hinge event. In that year the General Board reorganized itself (some say not for the better) in creating a series of departments, which, in turn, filtered down to the global church. The downside was that this structure tended to silo ize the church and led to greater and greater "bureaucratic" development. During this time we became much more interested in process than in mission.
1994 is a hinge event. This was the election of Louie Bustle as WM Director. This was the first time a "field experienced" person had assumed this role. He came in with the perspective of a missionary and a regional director rather than a USA district superintendent.
But more importantly, Dr. Bustle brought with him a focus on evangelism, multiplication, and decentralization. These were all things which needed to happen to spur growth of the church and a new philosophy of missions. A side effect was to shift from a role of World Mission as being a "missionary deployment agency" to a "church development agency." The implications of this are huge.
There were, of course, other hinge events, such as the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall which changed politically the world forever and opened new vistas of opportunity for the denomination.
CG: I agree with Franklin that the arrival of George Coulter as WMDirector in 1960 was a significant event. I recall that, as a University graduate student, my impression of Nazarene missions changed from "drab and old fashioned" to "contemporary" when the first letter I received from George Coulter was on newly designed, aesthetically pleasing stationery!
But to me the really major mid-20th century "hinge event" would have to be Paul Orjala's 1964 establishment of the missionary training program at NTS. If one looks at the growth curve of global mission in the church, you can graphically see the impact of Orjala's life and teaching on missionary candidates and subsequent dramatic growth overseas. Of course, several years elapsed before the students that he had trained graduated and had completed their pastoral/practical 2-3 years of experience. His early relationship with Donald McGavran (before he landed at Fuller) catapulted the Nazarenes to the forefront of the "infinite multiplication" of churches. In fact, the very first course in church planting in North America was taught by McGavran at NTS at Orjala's invitation. So, to me, Paul Orjala's recovery of NT principles of church multiplication, and then teaching those principles to a new generation of missionaries would have to rank as the number one "hinge event".
A related, significant event of the 20th century would be the February, 1994 election of Louie Bustle as WMDirector. Bustle was the first of Orjala's students to become Director, and the impact of this fact cannot be easily overestimated. Franklin has already pointed out that Louie came to office as a "field" person with hands-on experience. His philosophy of mission has been, and is, deeply influenced by Orjala's emphasis on indigenization and multiplication.
I would agree that the 1972 meeting of District Superintendents in Miami without missionaries present was important in casting a vision for a global church, and that the development of Regions was also highly significant.
LB: Chuck is correct on Orjala. Paul brought us into a whole new concept of missions. Wyncoop exposed me to a new way to view missions but it was Paul who infected me. We have been building on Orjala’s concepts ever since.
More than anything, missions is about listening to the Spirit and dreaming together. God does the rest.
FC: Chuck has rightly pointed out the importance of Paul Orjala and the initiation of the missionary training program at NTS. As with all things, there is always something which precedes certain developments.
I arrived in the World Mission office in June of 1961 to join a very small staff totaling 7 persons. Virtually on my first day in the office Dr. Coulter came in to talk about candidates. He had assigned this responsibility to me along with several other assignments.
He wanted me to start a quarterly publication for candidates, initially called The Missionary Beam." He wanted to dig into the pre computer list of names, and I discovered there were less than 400 total contacts in the files at that time. Twelve years later we had increased this to almost 2,000 contact names with a new system of application. He wanted to start a "workshop" program for furloughing missionaries followed by an "institute" program for newly appointed missionaries.
At the same time Paul Orjala was proceeding with his doctoral studies and became the lead teacher at the workshop and later the institute. This really set the stage for the next step in his career, NTS. I was told that at the time General Superintendent Hugh C. Benner strongly opposed the notion of Paul coming to NTS on the theory that the Orjala's were needed in Haiti (which they certainly were!)
It is always interesting to trace historical lines and to see how events, even hinge events, connect.
DW: Just a side note to add to this conversation. I was thinking about the turning points for mission in the CON, and thought it was interesting that we did not talk about movement toward a grass roots led mission which began with Men in mission and the move toward sending college students in the late 60’s. The CON was one of earliest to move in this direction. Today, short-term mission is huge both in the CON and beyond. Ralph Winters has said that this is one of the most drastic mutations of missions within the past 100 years. More money is spent each year in STM than traditional missions, especially if you include the amount spent on full time missionaries whose primary or secondary role is working with Work and Witness, Youth In Mission, etc. I am in the middle of research right now related to how STM is morphing into what I call “congregational mission” in which whole congregations are engaged in a long term focus such as Bethany First in Swaziland. In a survey I conducted about 6 months ago, I found that the majority of Nazarene churches over 500 in worship or attendance have this type of partnership and that the majority of those that don’t are projecting to begin partnerships within the next five years.
I think that the move toward lay-missions was a huge turning point for us. Whether it was good or bad, is yet to be seen and depends on how we address the issue. A discussion amongst missiologists now is how we can utilize the tools of missiology to make this a positive movement for the church. A major discussion is also about how we prepare long term missionaries to be brokers between two cultures. This is just my opinion, but the greatest challenge ahead for those of us who educate as well as those of us who administrate is to find healthy patterns of “north-south” interdependent relationships in which we work together toward a common mission. Paternal relationships or sponsorships are probably the norm right now in most of these partnerships. We have to find ways to change this into healthy relationships.
LB: You may know this, but during the 60’s, leadership did not want laymen to go to the field. I remember a man from Michigan who was a builder who wanted to volunteer, but was not allowed to go. Finally Dr. Phillips told him to write to missionaries in Trinidad and to me in the Virgin Islands. He didn’t get a response from Trinadad so he came and helped me build several buildings and taught me how to build. That was one of the very first examples of Work and Witness.
FC: I had never heard the Michigan builder story that Louie refers to here.
Dr. Phillips may have halted this, but I remember a time, when volunteer college kids had caused some difficulties and the missionaries there were raising a ruckus about it, he defended the program and the concept and in essence saved the idea.
I would say that it was a compliment to Louie that Phillips wrote him about this builder and reveals a great deal of trust that already developed with Louie and Ellen to "handle" the situation.
Interesting to know how these things develop.
CG: Volunteerism has been a very significant event in the CON. Work and Witness began as "Men in Mission" under Paul Gamertsfelder (Central Ohio). He asked several times to take men to the field, but E.S. Phillips denied the request. Men were allowed to vote in the NWMS as early as 1952, but it was not until Jan. 15-25, 1974 that Gamertsfelder was allowed to take a group of men to Panama. He had asked to take a group previously, but was denied by E.S. Phillips. However, in 1972 Gamertsfelder became the first man to be elected to the general NWMS Council, and I believe that gave him the necessary "clout" to get permission for the trip. I have documented these origins, as well as the beginning of Mission Corps (NIVS) in an ANSR paper which I gave in 2002--you can find it on the CON website (Click on ANSR in the CON A-Z Directory, then click on Documents by Date, then "2002" and Gailey). I also briefly outline in the paper how NIVS developed out of W and W. Paul Gamertsfelder is still living, and I was privileged to speak at his retirement dinner from the Central Ohio NMI Council a couple of years ago.
As far as a major "turning point", I think it depends on the perspective as to whether or not we are talking about the growth of the church overseas. I think the reason why none of us mentioned this volunteerism is because, as you say, David, most of these partnerships have been paternal in nature, and thus not directly related to the seismic change in CON growth. Winter was right is saying that volunteerism has been "one of the most drastic mutations of missions", but many missiologists question the immediate benefit of such a mutation to the local churches overseas. Franklin has reminded us that all that we do should center on the local church. Of course, these volunteer efforts do inspire and benefit the sending churches, so it can be argued that they indirectly benefit WM. If, as you say, we could turn more of these volunteer encounters into "healthy relationships" that would be a boon.
DW: In relation to your last statements, Chuck, I think this reflects a changing perception of missions that really began during the 60’s and 70’s and which has taken force in the past 5-10 years. My opinion is that there is a major turning point not only in the U.S. but globally in which mission is not limited to the “professionals”, but a turn toward mission being the nature of the church which engages the whole church in the whole mission, and which includes those who are long term missionaries. I saw this when we lived in South American and again this past year in Africa.
FC: The references Chuck makes to the role of Paul Gamertsfelder are certainly correct. He was really the godfather of the whole notion of men getting actively involved as volunteers in mission(s).
I am wondering if Dr. Phillips was hesitant in putting the brakes on laymen going to the field in groups, vs. ministers or elders. He had a clear distinction in his mind between clergy/lay in the local church and talked to me often about the fact that "clergy need to be in control." Sometime along in the early 70"s or late 60's I facilitated a large group of pastors from Colorado going to Panama and Dr. Phillips was fully in support of this venture. So, I am wondering if the issue for him was the clergy/lay issue.
One other little antidote on "men in missions." I was a very young page at the 1952 General Assembly when the resolution to include men in NWMS came up. Dr. E. O. Chalfant (Chicago Central DS) got up and made a speech against including men. The tide was about to have the resolution defeated when Louise Robinson Chapman came to the platform and made an impassioned speech in favor of including men in the organization. And that was the end of the debate. She carried a very big stick. It passed.
DW: This is a fascinating conversation. I am interested in the paradigm shift of missions from above to missions from below. This is a move away from strategies which we develop from the leadership of mission that opens the possibilities and the finances for mission to expand to a more organic approach which begins in the local churches. Louie and I saw this at the conference in South Africa as leaders from the whole region were pushing toward a move that would engage the whole 500,000+ Nazarenes of Africa in mission instead of just a select few. We are also seeing this from the U.S. and other areas. This is huge! It represents a major paradigm shift that hasn’t been orchestrated, but is just happening. The needed strategy from above will be to find ways to engage this movement in biblical theological ways to avoid folk theologies and repeated paternalistic patterns. (My opinion is that the best strategy will be an integrated strategy which networks long term missionaries, leadership, local churches and resources beyond the church. )
The Church of the Nazarene was ahead of other denominations in engaging lay people in mission in the 60’s, and my thoughts are that this has opened the door for what we are currently seeing, at least from the U.S.
I would like to pick up on this topic in a few weeks to look at current changes in mission which will affect how the church engages in mission in the present and near future.
