Mennonite Ministries AIC

Consultation: Botswana, Feb 2000

Some observations by Dr Stephen Hayes

Introduction

In February 2000 I was permitted to attend the Mennonite Ministries consultation on African
Independent Churches held in Mahalapye, Botswana. I have written the following report of
my own observations and impressions of the consultation, in the hope that it might be useful
and informative.

Point of view of this report

I am not a Mennonite, nor a member of an AIC, so I will begin by saying something of my
own background. I am a member of the Orthodox Church, specifically, of the Greek
Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa. I was not at the consultation as an
official representative of my church, but I mention my church background because Orthodox
theology differs from Mennonite theology, and this colours the way in which I interpret the
things I observed at the consultation. Just as there can be cross-cultural misunderstandings
between American Mennonite missionaries and Batswana AIC leaders, so there can be
cultural misunderstandings between Christians of different backgrounds and traditions.
Where I think I may have misunderstood something, or that something I say might be
misunderstood, or where I am conscious of a significant difference in interpretation or
approach, I will mention it as I go along. There may also be some differences I am unaware
of, and I hope this general warning may help readers to spot them.

I have, however, had quite a lot of experience of, and contact with, AICs, going back to when
I was in my early teens. I wrote and taught a course on Mission as African initiative: the
African Independent Churches at the University of South Africa, in the early 1990s, and I am
continuing my research into the history and mission methods of AICs, though I have
officially retired from the university.

The Botswana consultation

The Botswana consultation of Mennonite missionaries working with AICs, AIC leaders, and
representatives of different Mennonite mission bodies in the USA. It followed similar
consultations in Lesotho and Transkei (in South Africa), and some of the participants had
been at those earlier consultations.

The earlier sessions, on Friday 4 February 2000 and the first morning session on Saturday 5
February, consisted of the Mennonite workers, administrators and board representatives, who
also held a separate evaluation session on Sunday 6 February. The remainder of the sessions
on Saturday 5 were attended by leaders and representatives from some of the spiritual
churches (AICs) in Botswana, including the Spiritual Healing Church, the Revelation Blessed
Peace Church, the Eleven Apostles Healing Spirit Church, the Head Mountain of God
Apostolic Faith Church in Zion and others.

Page 1
Main concerns of the Consultation

While the consultation discussed several different matters, there were two main ones that I
will discuss in this report: (1) Transformation and (2) The proposed “mentoring” model of
teaching.
Transformation
I believe that this is the most important question, since it concerns the goals of Mennonite
involvement with AICs, not only in Botswana, but elsewhere in Africa.

In a document from the Kuruman Consultation in 1997, Tim Bertsche wrote:

The following assumptions, crystallized by the Weavers, were

foundational in forming our past and present strategy:

Reserve judgement of belief and practice until we
understand the reasons for them

Approach AICs as fellow-students of God’s word with them

Elicit areas of study from their own felt needs, seeking
scripture which might shed light

Guard against the temptation to be theological “pruning
shears”; believe rather that scripture, as salt, light and
leaven, can accomplish God’s purposes among them in his
own time

We will not proselytise, but let them remain who they are,
i.e., AICs

Historically, these assumptions have guided Mennonite strategy in dealing with AICs for the
last 25 years. They have enabled Mennonite missionaries to build good relationships and a
high level of trust with AIC leaders, and to help AICs to equip their leaders for ministry in
places where Mennonite missionaries have not been planting Mennonite churches. Many
AICs have been able to work with Mennonites because they perceive the Mennonites as
disinterested. Since they are not planting Mennonite churches, they are therefore not trying to
get the AICs to join them.

At the Botswana Consultation, however, there was quite a lot of discussion about
“transformation” as a goal of the Mennonite mission, which seemed to contradict some of
these assumptions.

I had discussed some of these matters in the AIC discussion forum with Eugene Thieszen,
Stan Nussbaum and others, and Stan has also raised them in the Review of AICs.1 In both the
electronic discussions, and at the Botswana consultation, people expressed concern about the
transformation being wrought by the Mennonite mission, and whether there was anything to
show for the 25-year involvement with AICs.

1
The “AIC discussion forum” is an electronic conference for discussing AICs. More
information can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aic_research/ I would like to
invite anyone who is concerned with AICs, whether members of an AIC or not, to join this
conference and participate in the discussions.
1

Page 2
After 25 years of Bible teaching by Mennonite missionaries, were the AICs who had received
such teaching any more biblical in their approach to such things as ancestor veneration,
sacrifice and sorcery? Were their leaders and members showing signs of Christian behaviour
and of applying Christian ethical standards in their lives?

Both positive and negative signs were reported. Eugene Thieszen, for example, reported (in
the electronic forum - he was not present at the consultation) that he had discovered that AICs
that he thought he had known well were practising ancestor veneration and sacrificial rituals
of African traditional religion, and that he only discovered this after a long acquaintance with
them. Others expressed similar concerns, but also said that there were also signs of genuine
biblical transformation in the lives of people. Nevertheless, Botswana also has one of the
highest rates of AIDS transmission in Africa, and members of the AICs taught by the
Mennonites seem to be no exception. This indicates that members of these AICs are just as
sexually promiscuous as the rest of the population, and that years of Bible teaching have
failed to transform their application of Christian sexual ethics.

The question being asked at the consultation was therefore whether 25 years of Bible
teaching had transformed the lives of individuals, so that it could be seen that they loved
Jesus Christ and the Bible, and how this affected their relationship to local African culture.

At the consultation some of the Mennonite members also remarked on the difficulty of
transforming American Christians. If African Christians are to be judged by the extent to
which they have been transformed in relation to their culture, should not American Christians
be judged by similar standards. If African Christians cling to ancestor veneration and other
values that do not harmonise with biblical values, do not American Christians similarly cling
to materialism and economic values with no biblical basis?

Another concern was whether the Bible teaching among AICs was actually reaching
unreached people. This was a concern of mission boards on North America.

When the AIC leaders joined the consultation, they reported on the effects of the involvement
of the Mennonite missionaries from their point of view. Their reports were positive: they had
found the Bible teaching useful in a number of ways, and they hoped that it would be
continued and even expanded. Some referred to problems caused in the AICs when members
of the churches had received higher education, and tended to look down on poorly-educated
church leaders, and hoped that there would be more teaching for this reason.

Some spoke specifically on how the Bible teaching had transformed their lives, helped them
to love Jesus better, and see that the Bible was more important than their customs and
traditions. These reports seemed to be encouraging from the point of view of most of the
Mennonites present, and seemed to be regarded as a sign of the kind of transformation they
were looking for.

Another question was whether the Mennonite ideal of a “servant leadership” was being
conveyed through the Bible teaching, and whether the leadership patterns of the AICs were
being transformed to conform to this ideal.
Observations and comments on transformation

My own view of the question of “transformation” is probably different from that of most of
the Mennonites. In part this is due to the differences between and Mennonite and Orthodox

Page 3
theology and ecclesiology, and even culture. While I agree that an important transformation is
that people should love Jesus more deeply, my view of how this transformation is to be
discerned and achieved may differ from that of many Mennonites. An Orthodox teacher, St
Seraphim of Sarov, once said “Find inner peace, and thousands around you will be saved”.
For Orthodox Christians, such a transformation is wrought primarily by the Holy Spirit in the
life of a Christian. We cannot, by our activities, such as Bible teaching, bring about this
transformation. We are not to try to transform others, but to allow God to transform us. Our
first task is to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. If we do not do this, if we do
not open our own lives to transformation by the Holy Spirit, we will not be able to witness to
others. And any part we may play in the transformation of others will be precisely by witness,
by being, not doing. As others see, that is, witness, the transformation God has wrought in
our lives, they may in turn open themselves to being transformed by the Holy Spirit. As we
ourselves become more Christlike, more godly, others can be saved through witnessing this.
The Orthodox technical theological term for this is “theosis”.

In saying this, I am aware that it could easily be misunderstood, because of differences in

culture and terminology. Protestant Christians are inclined to be suspicious of anything that
smacks of “works righteousness” or “salvation by works”. For Orthodox Christians the whole
“faith versus works” question makes little sense -- it is seen as a dispute peculiar to Western
theology. From an Orthodox point of view, it is Western activism that seems conducive to
“works righteousness”, the emphasis on “doing” rather than “being”.

The point here is that we are to proclaim the good news of the kingdom, and make disciples,
not by proselytism, but by witness. Our Lord Jesus Christ said, “You shall be my witnesses”
(Acts 1:8).

I hope I am not becoming too “preachy” here, but I believe it is important to make the
difference in approach clear. Western Christianity tends towards activism. Many Western
theologians point out that the Hebrew approach is active and that God is a God who acts, and
contrast with the “Greek” approach, which is more ontological, and they see this ontology as
somehow opposed to the “Hebrew” activist approach. So, for example, when they speak of
Christian ministry, many say that we should not see it in terms of status (being) but rather in
terms of function (doing). But from an Orthodox Christian point of view the problem is that
by emphasising doing over being, we can easily try to usurp God’s task. Our task is not to
transform others, but to be. We are to be transformed. We are to be witnesses.

Similarly, there may be a different understanding of “servant leadership”. Mennonites may

find it strange that Orthodox Christians have any conception of servant leadership when
archbishops are addressed as “Your Eminence” and the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria is
addressed as “Your Beatitude” and is described in praise songs (yes, they are similar to the
Zulu izibongo) as “judge of the universe”. Yet those same bishops might sign their letters as
“the humble mediocrity” or “the unworthy servant”, which might sound strange to egalitarian
American ears. Servant leadership is not a matter of titles or absence of titles, but is rather in
an inner disposition, and the kind of transformation that is brought about by the Holy Spirit.

The last few paragraphs are intended to give some indication of “where I am coming from” in
the comments that follow.

It seemed to me that in looking for or seeking to bring about “transformation” there was a
tendency to depart from the original principles of the Mennonite ministry among AICs. There

Page 4
may have been some pressure from mission boards and funding agencies in the USA to
produce or report tangible results that could be presented in terms that Western donors could
understand. The original assumptions presented a “no strings attached” model, but some of
the descriptions of the proposed “transformation” seemed to depart from this.

Unreached people

There was some concern about whether “unreached people” were being reached.

The Mennonite policy up till now seems to have been to help to equip the AICs who are
reaching unreached people, rather than to plant Mennonite churches and have missionaries
themselves evangelise the unreached.

The question is: should this policy be changed? And if so, why?

That is not a question for me to answer, but it is one I believe Mennonites should be asking.

Statistics, scattered and incomplete as they are, show that it is mainly AICs that are reaching
the unreached. And one of the reasons they are doing so may be precisely the things that
make Mennonite donors uncomfortable: the use of things like salt and ashes in healing
rituals, protection against witchcraft and sorcery, and similar things.

It seemed to me that there was a tendency at the consultation to look for ways of moving the
AICs away from these things towards behaviour, practices and vocabulary that American
Evangelicals feel more comfortable with. But if this were to happen, one of the likely effects
would be to move the AICs away from the thinking and culture of unreached people, and into
a kind of Christian ghetto. Instead of evangelising the unreached, they might revive the
Christians. That may not be a bad thing, but it is not the same as reaching the unreached.

I may have misinterpreted what people said at the consultation, but I got the impression that
the AIC leaders at the consultation who spoke disparagingly about such things as the use of
salt and ashes in healing got more approval from some of the Mennonites present than those
who did not, and that the use of Western evangelical vocabulary was quite important. It
seemed that one of the things that would be regarded as a sign of transformation would be a
greater emphasis on preaching, and that this would indicate a more biblical approach. But
would it? When Jesus sent out the twelve, he gave them power and authority over demons
and to cure diseases, and they were to preach the kingdom of God (not Jesus as personal
saviour) and heal the sick (Luke 9:1-2). It has not gone unnoticed by African Christians (and
not just members of AICs) that Western Christians tend to stress the preaching, and gloss
over the healing. And lest we think that that applied only to the twelve, when Jesus sent out
the seventy it seems that healing took priority over preaching (Luke 10:9).

It has often been their emphasis on healing that has helped AICs to reach the unreached. By
providing Bible teaching, Mennonite missionaries may have improved the quality of their
preaching and teaching but if preaching and teaching and an intellectual approach replace the
healing, it may hinder, rather than enhance, the capacity of AICs to reach the unreached. The
original assumptions of the Mennonite mission did not do this, and it would be a pity to
abandon them now.

Page 5
Rather than putting pressure (however subtle) on AICs to abandon such things as the use of
salt and ashes in healing, Mennonite missionaries could perhaps encourage them to make the
point that healing is a sign of the kingdom of God more explicit and visible (Luke 10:9). No
doubt the missionaries have already been trying to do this, and perhaps the lack of an explicit
theology of healing (as opposed to the use of things like salt and ashes) is what has made
some question whether any transformation has taken place. But there could be a danger in
looking for evidence of transformation in the abandonment of certain healing methods and
the adoption of the somewhat esoteric and exotic vocabulary of American evangelicalism.

One of the strengths of the Mennonite mission, as expressed in the assumptions, was that it
sought to avoid the mistakes made by many Western missionaries in Africa in the past. One
of the main mistakes was to try to provide answers to questions that Africans were not
asking, and to solve non-existent problems. The Renaissance, Reformation and
Enlightenment had changed the face of Europe (and North America) and gave rise to what we
call “modernity”. In Africa, the premodern worldview still existed. The Western missionaries
imported a version of Christianity that had been contextualised to deal with the problems of
modernity. The problems of most Africans were different. Western missionaries sought to
solve the problem by “civilising” Africans -- getting them to exchange African problems for
Western ones, so that the gospel that had been contextualised in the West could provide the
answers. This has been described in some detail by writers like John and Jean Comaroff.

One of the problems Africans faced was witchcraft. Western missionaries (whose own
society had emerged from the Great Witch Hunt only a couple of generations earlier) tried to
persuade Africans that witchcraft “doesn’t exist”. I have dealt with this in article that can be
read on the Web (http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/WITCH1.HTM), so I won’t go into the
details of it here, but the fact that some 300-400 suspected witches have been killed in the
Northern Province of South Africa over the last 7 years shows that it is by no means a
problem of the past. And some of the AICs seem to be better equipped to deal with it than
Western denominations who resort to denial.

Presbyterian missionaries in Ghana faced a similar problem. For them, the important criterion
to show that the gospel had been accepted was guilt. They were looking for a transformation,
and the evidence of the transformation would be that people would be aware that they were
guilty. They were frustrated because they could not see enough evidence of guilt among their
Ewe converts. The Ewe Christians worshipped a God who delivered them from evil, rather
than a God who made them feel guilty.2
Ethics

The problem with people not feeling guilty, however, is that very often they don’t think their
behaviour is sinful and ungodly. Stealing, fornication, drunkenness and other forms of sinful
behaviour can (in their view) be excused as minor problems. So perhaps the Presbyterian
missionaries in Ghana had a point after all. If there were a real transformation, would not the
proportion of these things be lower among Christians than it is among the general population?
Christians do not achieve instant perfection. They will continue to quarrel, steal, gossip and
fornicate. They will continually need to struggle against anger, covetousness, malice and lust,
the passions that lead to this kind of behaviour. So part of one’s growth as a Christian is to
2
Birgit Meyer, “If you are a devil you are a witch and if you are a witch you are a devil: the
integration of ‘pagan’ ideas into the conceptual universe of Ewe Christians in South-Eastern
Ghana”, Journal of Religion in Africa XXII, 2, 1992, pp 98-132.

Page 6
recognise such behaviour as evil, and to struggle against the passions that cause it. The
Orthodox theological terms for this struggle are podvig or ascesis.

It is quite clear from the Scriptures that Christian people should not steal, fornicate, oppress
or injure other people. In many of his letters St Paul exhorts Christians to “put off” or “turn
away” from certain attitudes and forms of behaviour and put on others: not being drunk with
wine, but being filled with the Spirit; not fighting and arguing and disputing, but building one
another up in love. But these are things that follow the liberating power of God. They are
done, not in order to placate an angry God, but out of gratitude to a loving one: the God who
heals, restores relationships, and delivers from evil.

Ethical teaching is therefore important, but needs to be seen in the context of what God has
done to deliver us from evil. And this is surely one of the things that Mennonite Bible
teaching can do. Not to change people’s lives (as that is the task of the Holy Spirit) but to
show from the scriptures what it is to be a Christian. The fruit of the Spirit is brought forth by
the Spirit. We cannot create the fruits of the Spirit in other people, any more than we can
make a pear, a peach, a banana or a mango. But we can water the trees.

The Mennonite involvement in AIDS ministry in Botswana seems to open useful

possibilities. In South Africa, most of the government and NGO efforts to counter AIDS (and
other sexually-transmitted diseases) have emphasised the theme of “safe sex”, and this has
often taken the form of publicity campaigns like “National Condom Week”. In some ways
this is analogous to the approach taken to witchcraft and witch hunts. As many deny that
witchcraft exists and is evil, so many deny that fornication is evil. From the point of view of
Christian ethics, both sorcery and fornication are evil. The appropriate response of Christians
to sinful behaviour is to confess those sins and forsake them, not to deny that they exist or to
deny that they are evil.

Much the same applies to corruption, theft and unjust enrichment. Publicity campaigns will
do little, but the witness of Christians who refuse to steal from widows and orphans by
participating in pension fraud in government offices and similar activities could do much.
What teaching can do is to support Christians in their witness in these circumstances -- to
discuss some of the concrete problems and how to face them. What does one do if one works
in a government office where clerks are defrauding pensioners? What does one do if one’s
neighbour accuses another neighbour of being a witch? What guidance do the Scriptures
give? It is these things that make the Mennonite approach so valuable. But they are also
things where it is hard to measure “outcomes”. How do you determine the number of
Christians who didn’t defraud a pensioner, or take a bribe to let a stolen vehicle cross the
border, or did not make accusations of witchcraft, and who did these things as a result of
Bible teaching?

Perhaps classes and TEE meetings could make provision for discussion of such concrete
instances as these -- things that have happened in the experience of the participants, or people
known to them.

The “mentoring” model of teaching

Stan Nussbaum presented a “mentoring” model as a way forward, and it seemed to meet with
general acceptance as a way to build on the existing Bible class model that has been used up
till now, though apparently there was some resistance to the idea in Lesotho.

Page 7
From the reports I heard, I believe that this has already been happening informally, in the
relations that have been built up between missionaries and AIC leaders. The difference would
be a conscious attempt to deepen these relationships in a more focused way.

Stan Nussbaum noted that the Bible is reaching AICs and entering their church life mainly
through the following channels:

1. Singing
2. Preaching
3. Rituals/healing
4. Annual conferences
5. Holy Spirit encounters

I found those particularly interesting, because (1), (2), (3) and (5) are the main ways in which
the Bible is encountered in the Orthodox Church, which is therefore very similar to AICs in
this respect. The Orthodox ritual of anointing the sick, for example, has 7 readings from the
Epistles, 7 from the Gospels, nine canticles based on scripture, and several Psalms. In
addition, in the Orthodox Church, the Bible is known through the ikons, and through the
liturgical cycle of the church year. These are not separate things, but they all combine
holistically, so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Most Western Christians, on the other hand, seem to encounter the Bible mainly in individual
Bible reading and study, in Bible study groups, and in reading books about the Bible (of
which an enormous number are published, ranging from “spiritual Westerns” to scholarly
tomes). In other words, the Bible is encountered mainly apart from the gathered church.

I got the impression at the consultation that the Mennonites would like to have some
indication that there is a greater love for the Bible among the AICs, that it has a more visible
effect on their life. The question is: what kind of indication are you looking for? Are you
looking for an effect that is culturally familiar to Western Christians - an intellectual, rational,
individualist approach to the Bible? That kind of approach was only possible at all after the
rise of modernity -- the invention of printing, electric light, cheap paper production. Is the
way of life of most AIC members in Botswana conducive to that? In the towns, possibly. But
in the rural areas? Tending cattle at cattle posts? And yes, nowadays with the expansion of
schooling many more people have learnt to read -- but have they made the jump to reading to
learn? Not just for a diploma, but for the love of that kind of learning? Until that happens, for
many people the individual rational approach to reading the Bible will remain foreign.

The “mentoring” (or perhaps, more accurately, “discipling”) method is a promising one, and
needs to be extended along the lines that Stan Nussbaum suggested. But the criteria that will
be used to evaluate it need to be thought through more carefully. Looking at the use of the
Bible in singing, preaching, rituals, healing etc., could be a start. In doing this, it might be
useful to also look at cultural differences in expression. A hymn or ritual may seem culturally
unfamiliar, but it is not necessarily unbiblical.

General missiological observations

The mission model developed by Mennonites in working with AICs over the last 30 years is
unique. Mennonite missionaries have chosen to help existing denominations by equipping

Page 8
their leaders, rather than planting Mennonite churches. In part, that has been made possible
by Mennonite ecclesiology. It would not be possible for Orthodox missionaries to engage in
mission without planting Orthodox churches: Orthodox ecclesiology would not allow it. And
yet there are also some similarities. In East and West Africa, some AICs have seen
themselves as Orthodox, and have wanted to become Orthodox, and missionaries from
outside have done similar things to the Mennonites -- mainly acted to equip local leaders.

There are some variations, of course. A church planting type of mission can get involved in
things that might need outside financial support -- help in erecting church buildings, clinics,
schools and other buildings, paying some full-time workers and so on. I believe that a great
deal of caution is needed in such things. Too much money from outside can create a
superstructure that the infrastructure of the local church cannot support. But for the kind of
ministry that Mennonites have been involved in, such things should not even be thought of.

The missionaries can bring their skills, their knowledge, and above all, their Christian
witness. But the last thing they can do is become dispensers of funds. Delores Friesen gave
me an article by Wilbert Schenk, Mennonite missions: 1945-1983: themes and issues, in
which Schenk speaks of “partnership”, and one of the misunderstandings that arose was
indigenous groups expecting that partnering with foreign bodies would open up channels to
external and other resources.

This danger is not to be underestimated. The Anglicans in the same period (1963-1983)
promoted what they first called “Mutual responsibility and interdependence in the body of
Christ” and later (praise God!) shortened to “Partners in mission”. In practice, however, it
was reduced to a bureaucratic structure for transferring money, and far from abolishing
paternalism in mission (as its supporters claimed) it simply entrenched it by disguising what
was happening with fancy words. There was very little partnership, and even less mission.

In a non-churchplanting mission, such as that conducted by the Mennonites, the danger is

even greater. It could lead to the entire relationship being dominated by a struggle for access
to resources. An example of the danger can be seen in the African Independent Churches
Association, sponsored by the Christian Institute. Some AICs asked the Christian Institute in
South Africa to help with theological education, and the Christian Institute got funds from
overseas for this. Huge sums were spent to develop a syllabus, which was then abandoned
when the leader of the project fell in love with printing machines and went into publishing.
The new leader, Basil Moore, was enamoured of Western theology, and changed the syllabus
(which was a good one, and had been development in consultation with AIC leaders) to one
that would teach the latest First-World theology of demythology, God is dead, etc. He was
replaced by one Maqina, who appointed programmers in various languages, each with a
secretary (and each with a car), but nothing to program. Two syllabuses and many Peugeots
later, there was still no course. This is documented in Martin West’s book Bishops and
prophets in a black city. The full story will probably never be told, because most of the
Christian Institute’s records were seized by the Security Police in 1977, and were probably
shredded in the lead-up to the 1994 elections.

One of the books that has greatly influenced my missiological thinking is Roland Allen’s
Missionary methods: St Paul’s or ours. Though it was written for an Anglican church-
planting setting, I nevertheless believe that a lot of it can be applied to the Mennonite
mission. The AICs are already using Roland Allen’s methods, and always have. That is their
main strength. If the Mennonites were to provide or channel funds for buildings or for

Page 9
salaries of people in those churches (or associations of churches) they would be lumbering
both themselves and the AICs with the burden of paternalism, and would destroy the greatest
strength of the mission - that there are no strings attached from either side. It would be
introducing the “colonial mission model” into a situation which has thus far avoided it.

This means that the Mennonite missionaries should not be looking for a way to “replace”
themselves with locals, if by that is meant salaried Bible teachers who will do precisely what
the missionaries are doing. The “finding local replacements” idea was a suggested way of
disentanglement from the “colonial mission model”. In the case of Mennonite mission among
AICs, that model does not apply, and they do not need to extricate themselves from it. And
most of the extrication plans have failed. The missionaries may have found replacements, but
the replacements have to be funded from the same sources that the missionaries were.

The same applies to sending leaders overseas, bursaries and scholarships for study in other
countries. This leads to competition for resources, rivalries among AIC leaders, and,
inevitably, to paternalism.

There is one possible exception, which I have mentioned to Stan Nussbaum. The Haggai
Institute in Singapore runs 5 week courses for church leaders from the former 3rd world. I
went on one such course in 1985, and found it useful, and believe it could be useful for some
AIC leaders. It would avoid many of the dangers I have mentioned because the Haggai
Institute does nothing else. Its aim is to train church leaders in the “how” of evangelism, and
that each of these leaders should train 100 others. When I went, students had to provide $300
US and get themselves to their nearest international airport. It may be different now, but it
was something that was within reach by local fund-raising back then, which a full overseas
seminary course would not be.

Conclusion

It seems to me that the assumptions that the Mennonite mission among AICs started out with
25 years ago were good ones, in view of the kind of mission that was conducted. These
assumptions have served well, and need no revision now.

There may need to be a broadening of methods, for example supplementing the classes by the
mentoring method proposed by Stan Nussbaum. But any new methods that are adopted
should be planned in the light of the original assumptions, and should be compatible with
them.

Any system of evaluation that is used should also conform to the original assumptions. The
main danger that I could see was a tendency to evaluate progress in the light of objectives that
were not stated in the original assumptions. It is difficult to set out to do one thing, and then
look back and say that you haven’t achieved something else. So I think that the Mennonite
missionaries and boards and donors need to look at the goals implicit in the original
assumptions, and measure transformation against those. And it seems to me that in the light
of those goals, the Mennonite mission has done pretty well over the last 25 years.

__________________________

Dr Stephen Hayes
PO Box 7648

Page 10
Pretoria
0001 South Africa

E-mail: shayes@dunelm.org.uk
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm

2000-02-11

Revised and made available on the Web: 2010-02-02

Page 11