SurveyDetails

GREAT COMMISSION
ROUNDTABLE

Consultations | Articles | Surveys | Reference

SurveyDetails | SurveySummary

GCGR QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY SUMMARY
(NOTE: GCGR is the old name for what is now known as GCR or the Great Commission Roundtable.)

1. In your opinion, what are the three or four key values or services which should be provided by the GCGR? Which would be most helpful to your organization and others in your country or region?

Documentation of Unreached Peoples research.
Regular updates (factual and statistical rather than triumphalistic.
Complete list of mission being carried on in 10/40 Window countries and contact person (updated quarterly).
We would look to this body as a facilitator of relationships and an honest broker. It should be a place for dialogue not a promoter of programs of points of view.
Provide reports on successful efforts to take the gospel to new peoples.
Updated information to enabling our ministry to intercede for various global situations.
To be truly global and not simply focus on the 10/40 window.
To provide networking conferences that don't simply give platforms to the same guys who always speak, but truly provide a mechanism for the high profile people to understand what the obscure pastor, evangelist and small mission leader is saying and doing.
To provide solid electronic information to facilitate networking.
Help other networks and organizations better coordinate prayer and mobilization efforts, avoiding duplication.
Consolidation of information regarding unrelated peoples currently spread out over several databases.
The GCGR would not do the work of research or sharing information, but would try to male sure there was no duplication of work.
Too much talk in the missions world and not enough holding agencies accountable for priorities, plans, and performance.
Security-sensitive networking resources via the web.
Provide vision for the need of evangelization in different parts of the world. Demonstrate unity. Encourage others by reports of needs and facts of what God is doing and wants to do on a world-wide level.
The GCGR could be instrumental in providing a vision.
To oversee a major ministry of reconciliation from within the church and then outside the church.
Foster an environment of authentic international exchange having non-western church teaching the western church the theology of suffering.
Information on how to plug into an Interdev Partnership in the people group of the world a person wanted to concentrate on. I understand security would be a major concern here.
A site where churches that are lagging behind in missions could find "how to" kind of information and contacts.
The service most helpful to us as an organization would be to be able to go to one site online and find a master list of people groups that are yet to be reached (regardless of size) along with the current status of each.
We certainly need a centre/address/base and I think it will have to be in the north. It needs to be somewhere with good office/technology/admin/communications facilities. The south does not have this to the same degree.
We do not need another bunch of people or roundtable, telling us, how important, great, urgent the Great Commission is. We need people answering the difficult situation of cold churches, having all the right answers.
To enable community on a global scale for the Church around the world. To have a common point of reference for prayer, ministry and support networks.
Create a forum for strategic direction at a global level.
Networking of resource people and resources.
Find funding sources.
Reaching the unreached should be the core of GCGR.
I think that we need to identify believers who are from an unreached people group but living outside the matrix of that group and make it a priority to mobilize and train them to reach that group.
Create a forum for discussing global trends in missions.
Focusing the world's attention on the areas of greatest need.
Currently the genesis of the next step lacks the razz-ma-tazz to capture the imagination. Needs a yearly focus, and marketing.
Keep up the momentum that has been achieved by AD2000 and other organizations.
Summarized communiques of others' activities, leave out long devotionals, etc.; absence of telling people to work twice as hard to get the job done by a set date; a balance of opposition to the faith as well as encouraging things going on.
From a women's perspective I'd like to see a website or chat room where as many women's groups as possible who are working globally and evangelistically could know each other's programs.
We are duplicating too much.
A chat room giving input as processes develop rather than waiting until one group has finalized its plans and then invite others to come on board.
A willingness to keep titles, people and organizations low key - a willingness to give up ownership for the sake of building the Kingdom.
There are still far too many Americans in leadership, staring new projects and then asking nationals to join or cooperate.
Providing a forum to facilitate the building of trust between leaders of many ministries, leading to increased, effective partnership.
Providing a mechanism for encouraging and facilitating inter-disciplinary interaction .
What I value most is knowing what others are doing in a target location and who we can collaborate with in achieving mutually desirable goals.
Key values or services would be to obtain information about particular field agencies to which Mexican missionary candidates have been called.
Information on organizations that are "task-specific."
Information exchange, Field situation updates, Collaboration in training and partnership in Evangelistic activities.
Coordinated research.
Practical, realistic mission information for churches with guidelines, role models, etc.
Formalizing an effort to incorporate young leaders from nations around the world into the mainstream of global mission leadership, allowing them to go alongside older leaders and even go past them.
A security system that would validate the members to allow a better flow of information. We find it hard to develop contacts and to build trust.
I see the over-riding, major value in the unity (not uniformity) implicit in getting together the three major participants and globally other associates in the common task.
Clarifying 2/3rds world agenda for the Western church.
Identifying and evaluating trends.
The cooperative effort will see to it that trans-denominational and multi-ethnic partnerships multiply.
Research about the world situation that somehow takes a more realistic view than that frequently given by David Barrett
Update the Lausanne Covenant for the 21sst century.
A serious look and encouragement by non-Americans on how to evangelize through the Internet. How do we prepare for cyber church?
Demonstrate unity in a world and a church where there isn't much normally..
There should be a clear and unequivocal commitment to evangelical theology, but with an openness to other constituencies.
Survey needs of each country and study which country can provide the needs, eg leadership training, pioneer evangelism, etc.
Help to promote and forge global or regional partnerships based on the above survey.
Formation of networks for rapid deployment of teams to serve in case of urgent needs due to emergencies.
Networking opportunities, a clearing house function (formal and informal) with opportunities to contribute to a larger planning strategy process.
Promote concerted prayer (eg 30 days of prayer for the Muslim world).
First, commitment to be obedient to the great commandment; Second, model the commitment to truth; Third, GCGR needs to take leadership in modeling a faith in and a dependence upon the Holy Spirit; Fourth, a commitment to unity in the Body of Christ
Sacrificial involvement in missions, member care, and working alongside and at time under those from the NSC.
Networking to minimize duplication and possible competition; true sharing of ALL resources; see the big picture of what God is doing world-wide not just in our own culture.
Continuing focus on the quarter (plus) of the world of the unreached. It is disheartening to see articles where victory is declared when we have barely begun the overwhelming task.
Continue focus on a church for every people and gospel for every person; consultations to orient world Christian movement through production of documents such as Lausanne Covenant, Manila Manifesto and forthcoming Millenial Manifesto.
Create awareness and training (miniAmsterdam 2000 in various parts of world) especially in sensitive areas like Muslims/Hindus.
Mobilization of resources (materials, personnel, financial, information) to where it is most needed.
Collaborative efforts which utilize different gifts for maximum output.
Establish prayer networks.

2. What is the most helpful or encouraging thing you have experienced in national, regional or global cooperation towards fulfilling Christ's Great Commission?

Networking information.
Collaborative efforts: churches and organzitions coming together for outreach
Growth and impact of women's groups in missions.
Growth of church in 3rd world countries.
The FTT meeting in Nairobi in 1998.
The establishment of personal relationships of trust which then lead to cooperative action and understanding.
Cooperative efforts to report God's blessings and outpourings in different parts of the world.
Leadership 88 and Lausanne 2 were wonderful in providing both programs and opportunities for leaders to interact. GCOWE 95 was not, we were segregated according to topics and interests. Schedule did not permit much networking.
Increase of access to information, more cooperation at every level. The local leadership in Turkey has been meeting for prayer and planning ever since we arrived here.
N. African partnership.
We "wee' Anglicans are accepted and taken in for work with the plans and efforts of others.
Participating/observing national initiatives (al la Ross Campbell) seeing them take off, resulting in discipling of peoples in a systematic way.
The ability to find others who are focusing on a particular people group.
Unity as a testimony to the world.
Cooperation among church leaders was a key to opening doors.
Patrick Johnstone's books and the Wycliffe Ethnologues.
Prayer, worship and open reconciliation.
Getting models and insights on how to overcome the ugly problem between theory and practice.
The sense of being in touch with a large, sophisticated movement.
Understanding what God is doing through the rest of the Body around the world. Creating linkages to the Global Christian Community so we can support each other through prayer and specific ministry support.
Networking. Many agencies and churches of various denominations are beginning to communicate with and support each other, rather than compete.
All powers and resources are concentrated to do one operation, we have one coordination centre which can serve for the good of others.
The easy sharing of ideas and inspiration - for me to adapt and apply in my own setting (whereas the large global ideas often are irrelevant and unuseful..
Tremendous sense of unity, where "turf" has been the big issue, it is now a minor issue.
Willingness of many leaders in Tanzania to get involved, what is lacking is solid biblical teaching about the task of world evangelization in local churches.
The formation of strategic evangelism partnerships to reach unreached people groups. Phill Butler/Interdev must be the most important development in missions in the least 15 years.
Prayer.
Regional gatherings of up to fifty focused on specific task goals such as the Bombay Consultation on Urban Poor.
The Iberoamerican Institute of Cross-Cultural Studies. An effort of around 20 missions.
Global Prayer Initiatives have been the most encouraging.
The cooperative efforts we've seen work from the AD2000 Movement and the Women's Track perspective.
Working towards common goals without formal agreements based on mutual accountability.
Personal contacts initiated at GCOWE '97.
Global cooperation and a growing togetherness of all branches of mainline churches and American Southern Baptists in the task expressed in the manila Manifesto, Pretoria GCOWE and the recent Iguazu mission consultation statements.
Lausanne Occasional papers.
Personal relationships rather than organizational connections.
Humble trainers who adapt themselves to the local culture, acting as learners together.
A ground swell of interest in partnership among organizations and churches involved in China.
The rise of the mission movement in the "new Sending Countries," sending workers to even Western Europe, working in unity, humility and grace.
Partnership gatherings a la InterDev, working with Godly men and women who really love the Lord and are not "flakes."
Sense of momentum coupled with fellowship

3. What is the most discouraging or disturbing thing you have experienced in this kind of cooperation?

The insensitivity and desire to dominate - "I have this wonderful vision and if you really love the Lord you will come and join me in fulfilling it" - that so many western agencies exhibit.
Members seeking only what they can gain; bureaucracy delaying work.
Some missionaries imposing their cultures on converts.
There are other misrepresentations of the partnership vision - misconceptions and failure to apply simple principles hat often lead to conflict and misunderstanding rather than to a true working together.
Turf wars.
Redundancy in efforts.
Having a particular view point or program promoted as the answer to the challenge of world evangelization.
I don't get a great deal of help from reading reports on one conference after another.
Not being able to trace e-mail addresses when needing support.
GCOWE was not very positive for me. Segregation by topics were not comprehensive enough to really allow for networking .
The launching of Lausanne in the UK seemed to be a duplication.
Exclusion of godly Roman Catholics and Orthodox, exclusion of national (usually orthodox) churches. Do we not have much to learn from them and much to gain from co-operation with them?
Watching organizations that seek after resources more than God, resulting in a gap between reality and the image that is fashioned to gain more resources.
The difficult of sustaining momentum.
People oriented rather than Christ-centered.
The most discouraging thing was the disunity in Germany.
Proliferation of networks which may give valid "buzz" to sincere people who like talking about Mission but drain the energy from other sincere people, who don't spurn genuine cooperation and unity but become confused and intimidated by all the options.
Expense/time/distance limiting the balanced multinationals representation at large events.
Lack of security in e-mail, and web-based content.
It was heartbreaking to see a very encouraging work centered around a small group of believers in a totally unreached people group be scattered to the winds virtually overnight after months of hard work. This resulted in the deaths of some involved.
People fanning the flames of issues already well known.
Limited cooperation between the "old heroes" and institutions of mission and evangelism and the new ideas which have a positive influence.
The weight of old structures still dominating new entities like AD2000.
Fragmentation, tribalism, territorialism. Also there is a tendency for leaders in some countries to see these events as a "plum" or means of gaining personal status by participating. There needs to be a way to enable the up and coming young leaders to be equipped and enabled for future service.
I find the lack of cooperation on the part of some to be discouraging. Those who do not trust others in the Christian community; distrust any other agency to know where they work or in what capacity.
GF when it moved from an open invitation for everyone who had something to contribute to be involved in top level leadership, to a closed group who ended up stifling and apparently killing it.
When somebody wants to set a specific global agenda for a situation they do not understand, resulting in simplistic ideas that are an embarrassment to the Evangelical world.
The limited capability of establishing low profile, flexible networks at a global level.
Reports of 'super-spiritual' ambassadors not acknowledging forerunner efforts.
The plain old human elements of ego, turf protection, pride. Right now we are facing a situation in Colorado Springs where another women's organization is forming with similar goals, working with the same people and using the same acronym as the one we chose years ago.
Lack of follow-through, after commitment.
Tendency to oversell or for the go of some leaders to interfere or get in the way of the work of the Spirit.
I've found that charismatic churches/mission organizations have barely been involved in the AD2000 Movement.
.Doctrine becoming more important than ministry.
Competition that still hangs on.
Personal hidden agenda, control, self-aggrandizement, to name a few.
Mobilization has been great but the implementation is basically conducting meetings.
Many churches still don't understand their role and that of mission organizations and no practical structure is in place to address this need.
Turf consciousness in international student ministries even though they are reaching only a minute portion of students in their nation.
The slowness with which the message of togetherness in the task is reaching the Australian scene.
Lack of clear vision; polarization between 'thinkers' and 'doers.'
Lack of motivation for clear evangelical articulation on certain theological issues.
Too many top scholars who have a lack of knowledge on how to take the Gospel out to the secular workplace.
Those who work in our target group are fearful of big, well-publicized efforts due to the danger in can bring to the field.
Instant-mentality of Americans and lack of endurance in working among resistant people groups.
Suspicion of partnership.
Imposed agendas unrelated to realities we face. Considerable hype but little practical synergy.
AD2000 Initiatives where organizers knew very little of the regional evangelical, political environment and acted hastily.
I set up for Window 3 in Pakistan, no one came because they were afraid when there was some trouble in the country. This was the very time we needed prayer.
The serious backward step towards inland people groups instead of urban peoples.
Competitive factors that have occasionally come between Lausanne, WEF and AD2000, this is a most unfortunate and disillusioning.
Imposing unilateral conditions and superiority attitudes; misunderatanding due to lack of socio-cultural knowledge on both sides.
Large organizations with lots of resources only interested in others buying into their program.
Competition and rivalry between various networks; overlap of task forces which constitutes a gross waste of resources (financial and human, time-wise); why can't we even agree on joint definitions and facts?
The concept of "church planting" as opposed to "disciple making" is a specific attempt to quantify results and measure success.
People promising to do things and never doing them. People more concerned with their own projects and programs rather than the greater good..
Western money in my country has often "bought" the services of once simple, dedicated servants of God whose focus has turned from God to all that money can give them.
Inability of North Americans to coordinate saturation church planting in US; think missiologically about everywhere else but not here.

4. If you could design a cooperative global effort for world evangelism in the 21st century, what would it look like? How would it best operate in your country or region?

It would be a decentralized, consensus-based with a high level of internal openness and mutual trust, allowing people from different backgrounds, cultures and nationalities to do things differently, but all to the glory of God.
Regional cooperation with open, direct interaction.
Avoid top heavy leadership (numbers).
Keep admin costs to minimum, avoid duplication, invest in the lost.
Healthy and balanced combination of spiritual and social involvement.
I would recommend that the Roundtable be transparent in its deliberations, passing on visions that can be taken or left according to their relevance in a particular region or situation. It needs to avoid the image of elitism, a controlling "in" group.
In Kenya I would build into the FTT's efforts. They need a communications arm, using both electronic and print media.
It would be a regionally based fellowship that occasionally fostered international (supra regional) contact, cross pollination of ideas, programs and dialogue.
A good cooperative effort that brings skills, gifts, resources, and especially prayer support from across the Church to the feeble efforts of some of us in smaller agencies.
We know that most organizations world-wide have zoomed in on the 10/40 Window, while we trample on millions of lost souls all around us (in less than 100 kilometres).
When groups like Interdev talk about partners they should also include pastors and churches.
Ask leaders of small ministries to say something, but not just to each other, but to major leaders (when they are listening). The major leaders must give at least some of their time to mingling with people. Some have come to view themselves as celebrities, not servants.
Prepare training materials to teach ministries how to transform projects into partnerships.
In my opinion on a local and national level the existing cooperative bodies are either already in place or semi-organized, these would be the best channel to work with to generate or increase cooperation,
It would look less white, less western, and more African or Asian, and with national workers not on the sidelines.
National Initiatives and Interdev-like partnerships. Developing country researches empowered to define needs and establish vision(s); holding key leaders congresses at the country level; setting goals and moving on them.
We need visionary leaders who can motivate people to action. Also mediators who have maturity and wisdom to draw various groups together; strategizers and implementers to fulfill the vision.
Foster an environment of authentic international exchange (i.e., the non-western church teaching the western church of the theology of suffering, etc.
We need Mission mobilizers and Partnership facilitators.
I would like to see all the national and international radio and TV preachers given a crash Perspectives course.
There needs to be a clear connection between the individual believer and his local church to the one big plan an worldwide idea. We do not need a bunch of national heroes coming together with other national heroes and giving birth to a new big plan which sinks down on a nation and churches, which really do not care.
I would not give authority to "national committees" who are notoriously out of step with new styles and leadership.
There would be a central depot of mission information and statistics about the unreached, a cooperative effort at maintaining key data bases, maps, etc. with agreed upon common definitions. MAP would be interested in playing a role in the implementation and support of such a service.
A primary contact person would have full access to all information and contacts listed for the unreached people. Brigada Connections was a good first attempt, but failed due to staffing and technological difficulties.
Much like the WEF Missions Commission regarding the study processes, but not like it regarding the heavy constitutional structure.
Give freedom to participants and get inspiration without drowning in bureaucracy.
An administrative setup that only coordinates and not controls The leadership should be willing to be servants.
A joint thrust based on invitation to all known to be carrying the Good News even though they may choose not to work with us.
If the major Global organizations really want to appear to be working together they've got to say it publicly, frequently, loudly and visibly. At this point the GCGR is a lovely secret among some mission leaders
An increased representation of women at this consultation, it is not going to happen just because we think it is a good idea.
An effective level of cooperation needs to have a strong basis at the country level. There is great value in cooperation and discussion at regional and international levels but there must be mechanisms for effective communication between all levels.
More focused coordination of strategic prayer, working in harmony with church planters.
Strong emphasis on mobilizing youth worldwide towards the "great completion."
Rethink the wholistic concept of the Gospel and 'how' that interacts with mission. Mission at its current state is outdated and not in touch with post-modern and/or millennial thought.
Be honest enough to confront the weaknesses in our own organizations. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to be people pleasers or God pleasers.
Highlight within the global mission realm the 2.5-3 million foreign students around the world so that the mission community will see them as a extremely strategic niche of the global mission marketplace.
Design a cooperative global effort for world evangelization though the hands of emerging leaders in their 30s to very early 40s who are now coming into their own and who need to take the mantle of leadership in world mission globally.
An electronic information base made up of interest-group sections.
Be a voice for the persecuted. Address the issues of the religions, the church and culture.
Mission experts must offer their services to local churches. The large mission administration budgets must be cut down.
Regional (as close to the field as possible) centers could be established to facilitate unity and cooperative efforts across denominational and mission organization lines. Functioning as supportive servants to the field.
DAWN type initiatives with considerable cross-pollination between continents and regions.
Basically a network of inter-linked ministries operating in fellowship, cooperation and mutual edification. That would certainly be best in African countries.
Expert trainers in all areas involved, lay people, workers, missionaries and leaders.
Specific concern should be given to nations farthest from where mission movements are strong.
The network should inform and minister courses on the problems and solutions in cross-cultural missions.
Multi-lingual forms of listening to non-western leaders and a strategic planning process for incorporating their wisdom into global evangelism efforts.
InterDev is an excellent model.
Sharing by the richer nations with those who are without finances so that there can be an equality of resources of all kinds.
We need to seriously struggle with greatly magnified communication while still exercising discretion for security reasons.
AD2000 network continue under WEF (as commissions?) and criteria for WEF expanded to include those in Lausanne movement in churches affiliated with WCC.

5. Please share other suggestions or recommendations you would like to make.

I would recommend that the Roundtable be transparent in it deliberations, passing on visions that can be taken or left according to their relevance for a region. It needs to avoid the image of elitism, a controlling "in" group.
Share stories of influencing nations' governments - how did it happen -can people like Doug Coe share how he developed such powerful ministries to national and world leaders?
Speed up process otherwise we will be overtaken by events; try some pilot projects.
I sense that GCGR is an important step in advancing into the last frontiers and my prayers are with you.
There must be serious, deep, abiding intercessory prayer.
Count on Brigada and Team Expansion to request to participate.
Various groups need to stop competing for the same resources. Local church pastors have anxieties that missionary organizations are only interested in churches for missionaries and money.
I think at some point those in leadership are going to need to revisit the relationship between spiritual revival and completing the Great Commission. Without a central motivating passion, all our strategies, conventioning and seminaring will be of little avail.
I personally feel that it is essential to get some common agreement about ministry priorities. This is the single, most important contribution that GCGR can offer. But it must be done with care and integrity if it is to have world following and commitment.
Continued prayer for unity.
Let us all work together for Jesus and honor one another. There is to much for us to do to either fight or exclude each other.
Start with a low profile, easy, workable structure, but do it quickly. In the March meeting you should decide on putting in place and function some of the core features which you are sure will be needed. Start to identify what kind of information you will disseminate through the information systems. Design ways to consolidate the work of WEF and Lausanne. This can be done without merging the partners formally. Agree on the 5 most central themes in mission and World Evangelization which should be. Wait with decisions on politically sensitive issues until you see how the basic core functions are working out.
The success of GCGR will depend on how much impact it will make in terms of mobilization.
Simplify ways of getting information out to e-mail but non-net users.
Inform me on how you will implement these questions into the future of GCGR and how in fact this most strategic arm will shape the future of world evangeliztion.
The Consultation needs to present this to the church-at-large in every nation.
Stop giving the church-at-large "artificial" reports on growth and help it face reality and understand the global consequences and disaster if it does not take up its role in global evangelization.
We really don't need more "book-learned, little field experienced" experts to come up with another plan, but something that is birthed from the field.
GCGR should not set a time-limit on its work, it should be something more permanent, yet flexible and grass-roots conscious.
It should be possible to form and establish a global network involving professionals and workers alike for disaster situations. This network should be designed to help not only in the immediate but also with long-term cooperation with the local church where there is no church, viz evangelism and church planting.
Be sensitive to regional/cultural differences and issues; one size does not fit all when it comes to partnership and cooperation.
I sit in committees of WEF and Lausanne in Germany and experience the overlap in initiatives and duplication in the work of these networks and suffer under this. This rivalry leads to confusion in the body of Christ, an impression of disarray in the general public and a weakening of the impact in the Christian and secular press as well as one the political level.
Maybe better to focus on a few things and doing them well. Going global may not be the best way forward at this time at least in some areas.
In India there are tremendous undercurrents by Hindu militants because of the mistakes of Western and Indian missionaries of the past in communicating Christ's love to them. This has provoked the present persecution and "hate" campaign against Christians
I believe you have a great potential to bless the body of Christ in the whole world in the 21st century, go for it!