Indigenous

by Don Sisk

Every Bible-believing, fundamental Baptist mission that I know has as its goal the establishment of indigenous churches. However, there is much confusion even among fundamental Baptists over the word “indigenous.”

A quick look at the dictionary tells us that indigenous means “produced, growing, or living naturally in a country or climate; thus, native.” The word is often used concerning plants or trees, and we say that these grow naturally in this climate or that these are native plants.

In the strictest sense, if we are going into a heathen land, there is no such thing as a purely indigenous church.

Theologically speaking, an indigenous church has become financially self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating. We mean by this, that it receives no financial help from an outside source, it is not influenced and certainly not dictated to by any outside organization or church. Self-propagating means that it reproduces itself.

Some organizations insist from the very beginning the church must be indigenous. If this indeed is the case, then there would be no such thing as a foreign missionary. When a missionary goes into a city, preaches the gospel, baptizes those who are being saved and teaches them, this is not natural or native to that particular group. Thus, to say from the very beginning the church must be indigenous would mean that there could be no foreign influence; therefore, in the strictest sense, no foreign missionaries. No church started by a foreign missionary is self-governing, self-propagating, and self-supporting from the very beginning.

To say that the foreign missionary cannot put any financial support into the church would be to say that he cannot influence the governing of the church and he could not influence the propagation of the church.

I do not believe that fundamental, Bible-believing mission organizations should become involved in controversies about the principles of the indigenous church. Just because someone may not follow nor believe exactly as I do concerning the policy does not mean that I could not pray for him and support his ministry.

To my knowledge, I have never seen this in print, but I have felt for many years that the indigenous principle is a goal and not a method.

Let me give a simple illustration. God has given us two children. When my children were born, I visualized that some day my children would be self-supporting, that they would be able to make their own decisions, and certainly that they could reproduce. However, I did not insist that from the time of their birth that they be self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating. I knew that for some years I would be responsible for supporting them; I would be responsible for governing them; and for many years, they would certainly not be self-propagating. But I had a goal that one day they would be.

God allowed me to start two churches in Japan. From the very beginning, my goal was that these churches would one day be totally indigenous. However, this did not mean that from the beginning I could not put my tithes and offerings into that local congregation, and certainly it did not mean that I could not influence the governing of the small and young church. It did not mean that I expected them to reproduce another church in a matter of a few days. However, eventually these churches would become self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating. God has wonderfully worked in these churches and both of them today are self-supporting and self-governing, and there is no influence or power from outside that rules over them. One of the churches has started seven other churches and the other church has been responsible for starting two other churches and two preaching stations. Thus, the goal has been reached. If I said from the beginning I would not support these churches in any way whatsoever, it would have been a great mistake. I do not believe that I violated a Biblical principle by helping to financially support these churches at the beginning, nor do I believe that I violated a Biblical principle by influencing the way the churches would be governed.

Many who talk about indigenous churches never establish indigenous churches. The record of BIMI speaks for itself. In every country around the world where BIMI missionaries have labored for any length of time, they have been able to establish churches that eventually became self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating. Thus, the goal of establishing indigenous churches has been and is being reached around the world by missionaries who are working under BIMI.

Dr. T. Stanley Soltau states in his book Missions at the Crossroads, “A church is not indigenous until it becomes native to the country and grows there naturally as part and parcel of the people among whom it has been planted.” This should be the goal of all Baptist mission organizations. It is indeed the goal and practice of missionaries with BIMI.

I praise God for every fundamental mission organization that is involved in winning souls and establishing indigenous churches around the world. Much confusion that has arisen over this issue has been a matter of semantics. All of our purposes are basically the same. I thank God for the opportunity to fellowship with, to pray with, and to plan future mission programs with mission leaders from other fundamental mission organizations.

The indigenous policy is certainly spelled out in the Great Commission. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway even unto the end of the world.” The Lord has commissioned us to evangelize, to baptize, and to teach those who have been evangelized and baptized to teach others. This is indeed the indigenous policy.