Missions - Full Report — Christians for Impact

Written by Andy Chrismer

Report depth:

Shallow.

See a summary here.

Disclaimer: The author comes from a Protestant perspective, though we think this report will also be valuable for Catholic and Orthodox readers. Across our work, we seek to take an ecumenical stance (our background here). Our missions research currently focuses on what we think are plausibly among the most effective efforts in global missions: indigenous missions, especially those following movement approaches such as DMM.

Main report

Jesus says in John 3:36:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them. (NIV)

Eternal life. That's infinitely good. What's more, this verse states that this infinite good is conditional.

One way to analyze the goodness or badness of an action is in terms of expected value, which is the value of an action multiplied by its probability. Put in a simplified mathematical form, the expected value E(x) of an outcome x that has probability P(x) of occurring can be represented by the equation E(x) = x * P(x).

So if there are actions you can take that could even possibly lead to someone gaining eternal life, even if the probability is small, then what would their expected value be? Infinity. It's so high that it breaks our expected value formula. This is the altruistic version of Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument presented by the seventeenth-century French mathematician, philosopher, physicist and theologian Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that human beings wager with their lives that God either exists or doe — Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument presented by the seventeenth-century French mathematician, philosopher, physicist and theologian Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). It posits that human beings wager with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Now, there are limits to these kinds of utilitarian calculations, and we shouldn't conclude that therefore no other causes matter simply because they can't compare to the infinity of evangelism—God commands us to do many things that don't directly relate to bringing people eternal life. But it's definitely worth noting when we think about causes that there is one that is infinite in scale. If it's even possible that we can influence another person's eternal destiny, wouldn't we want to?

The church was told to go forth and make disciples from among all peoples, yet 2.2 billion people still have no access to the gospel. Furthermore, the percentage of the world that identifies as Christian has been basically constant for the past 100+ years, staying somewhere around 33%. If this number is going to increase, something has to be done differently.

Our overall view

Often recommended. We think many of our readers should consider working on and/or donating to this issue.

We also think that DMM/CPM approaches are plausibly among the most effective ways to make an impact, though we are not certain of this. More research is needed. [1]

Support for global missions in places where only a small minority of people identify as Christian is an effective way to make an impact, though the highest-impact roles for a typical Westerner aren't what many people think of when they think of world missions. The most effective missionaries are people from the same culture as the people being reached or from a similar culture. The main role of Westerners should be in supporting and equipping native missionaries to reach their own people. Furthermore, short-term missions are generally unhelpful and a poor use of resources.

Missionary efforts led by the indigenous population also have the potential to see Christianity “go viral” in a population. When this happens, the result is often referred to as a church-planting movement, which David Garrison in his 1999 book defined as “a rapid and multiplicative increase of indigenous churches planting churches within a given people group or population segment”. [2] Garrison found ten universal elements in all of the church-planting movements he studied: extraordinary prayer, abundant evangelism, intentional church planting, scriptural authority, local leadership, lay leadership, house churches, churches planting churches, rapid multiplication, and healthy churches. [3] Today, some estimate that almost 100 million people, or more than 1% of the world, are part of one of these rapidly multiplying movements. What makes a successful attempt at a church-planting movement so especially impactful from a cost-effectiveness standpoint is the fact that it can reproduce on its own with minimal ongoing involvement of whichever outside organizations had initially been the catalyst for the movement. The initial investment keeps paying dividends, and the movement is no longer dependent on outside funds or support.

*A Bhojpuri church. (Source:* Bhojpuri Breakthrough by Victor John and Dave Coles)

Take the Bhojpuri people, for example. In 1989, there were only 28 churches among this entire people group of nearly 100 million people. Then, an organization called ASSI decided to adopt what was, at that time, a non-traditional approach to church planting by following Jesus’s model in Luke 10, in which disciples started by looking for a local “person of peace” who are welcoming and not hostile to the message and began discipling him and his family. In 1993, a year after trying this approach, the number of churches had increased from 28 to 36. A 2000 audit showed that it had grown to roughly 4,000 churches, and a 2008 audit showed that there were roughly 60,000 churches. Today, the number of baptized Christians among the Bhojpuri is in the millions, possibly over 30 million. Starting in the late 90s, missionaries and missiologists began studying common patterns in missionary engagements that led to hundreds if not thousands of movements around the world. Today, according to one estimate, there may be around 100 million people who are part of one of these rapidly multiplying movements.

Victor John maps the growth of CPM movements spreading out from the Bhojpuri people.

Where is this problem most relevant?

Countries in which fewer than a third of the people are (at least nominally) Christian are where church-planting movements are most likely to occur. Most of these countries are in the part of the world known as the 10/40 Window, an area that includes North Africa, the Middle East, and the majority of Asia.

How important, neglected, and solvable is Missions?

Scale

More than 2.2 billion people in the world have no access to the gospel and, unless something changes, will likely not have a chance to respond to it in their lifetime. This has temporal and potentially eternal implications.

Neglectedness

Unreached people groups are very neglected. An unreached people group is defined as “a people group lacking a church that can evangelize the group to its borders without cross-cultural assistance.” Unreached people groups make up 42.5% of the world’s population, but only 1% of mission dollars and 3% of cross-cultural missionaries serve among unreached people groups. This fact has been referred to as "The Great Imbalance".

Solvability

Fulfilling the command to “make disciples” is very possible in many places where there is little exposure to Christianity.

The high prevalence of faithful, rapidly multiplying Christian church-planting movements (CPM) in recent decades suggests that more growth is possible; givers and talented organizers can help catalyze movements among unreached people groups in ways that plausibly create 10–100x more disciples than similar-cost programs in better-reached areas in North America.

An evidence-based approach to catalyzing church-planting movements

While the more robust experimental approaches pioneered in economics have rarely ever been used in missions, there have been studies of common factors in missionary efforts that led to church-planting movements. David Garrison documented his observations back in the late 90s, and more rigorous studies have been done since by Robert Reach and Frank Schattner. Missionaries have learned from these observations and applied them in their efforts to bring about CPMs.

It should be noted that following best practices doesn't guarantee that a CPM will happen, nor, on the other hand, will it do to say that a CPM is all God's doing and that planning and strategizing are pointless. An analogy often used is to a sailboat, with the Holy Spirit as the wind and best practices as the sails: The wind is what moves the boat, but in order to move far, you need your sails up.

*A worship session among believers in rural village in India. This church was planted by a 27-year old church planter who was sponsored by 500k, a catalyst organization for CPM.*

It would be helpful to broadly categorize approaches to indigenous church planting into a couple of models. Of course, not all church-planting efforts can be neatly placed into one of these categories, but these give a general idea of the different philosophies:

The traditional "proclamation" model:

This places more of an emphasis on the importance of preaching and trained professional leadership. This model doesn't always strongly emphasize the rapid multiplication of disciples or use terms like movement and CPM. It follows the biblical example of the preaching-oriented ministry of Paul. Proponents of a proclamation model argue that it will lead to greater long-term health of churches and theological soundness.

The movement-oriented model:

This places more of an emphasis on lay leadership, as well as on faithful obedience as more fundamental to discipleship than theological education. This model strongly emphasizes rapid multiplication and intentionally aims at catalyzing CPMs. It follows the biblical example of Jesus's more Socratic method of teaching, as well as the outreach in Luke 10 in which the disciples looked for a "person of peace". Proponents of this model point to the massive growth that has resulted in a number of places where this model was followed.

The most common movement-oriented methodologies are

DMM (which stands for Disciple-Making Movements).

This is the most common approach. The emphasis in DMM is to find people of peace (Luke 10:6) – people who are welcoming and interested in the message, and open their group(s) of family and friends to the gospel. The disciple then offers this group the opportunity to go through a series of Discovery Bible studies to re-shape their worldview. These seekers are taught to apply and share what they are learning. The focus of this is to disciple the lost to commitment in a way that shapes them for obedience and witnessing. Since disciples will inevitably organize into churches, the disciple-making movement that results becomes a church-planting movement.

T4T (which stands for Training For Trainers).

This is the second most common approach. T4T focuses on training people to evangelize others and to train the people they evangelize to themselves go out and evangelize. The focus is usually on reaching individuals instead of groups. This can be understood as the lost person committing to Jesus and then being discipled to follow Jesus and begin evangelizing their family and friends. There is also more direct teaching of information than the DMM approach. (See a fuller explanation of the differences here). A variation of this approach called “4 Fields” is becoming common as well.

Overall, our view is that in the areas with the most low-hanging fruit (unreached people groups), movement approaches like DMM and T4T have a higher expected impact than proclamational approaches.

Some such as Justin Long have given numeric estimates of the impact of movement-oriented methodologies, and while some believe these estimates are optimistic, there are others who think that they are too low and have pointed out that the numbers are calculated similarly to how church denominations count their members. Whatever your view, it is hard to dispute that a fairly substantial impact has been made. And since we know of no evidence of the impact of movement-oriented models being any lower on average than that of proclamational models, while there is some evidence that it may be far greater, we would favor the movement-oriented models.

Furthermore, while some argue that the proclamational model is better at safeguarding against false teachings and bad theology, this argument appears to be based mostly on a priori assumptions, rather than on any evidence that this is in fact the case. In fact, it is possible that a movement-focused model is even less likely to lead to heresies than a traditional proclamational model; historically, most really egregious heresies start when a leader with a lot of charisma and influence comes up with their own ideas and perpetuates them, but movement-focused approaches safeguard against this possibility by decentralizing leadership and by creating a culture in which people treat the Bible as their sole authority. So it is difficult to say which model is better at safeguarding against bad theology.

Is there enough evidence to recommend DMM and T4T organizations?

Most Christian mission organizations are not as transparent as we would like them to be (and for oftentimes legitimate reasons; many are operating in countries that are openly hostile to Christianity). There is often little information about how exactly mission organizations implement their church planting programs, collect data, and verify results. These are important categories for differentiating what a mission org claims to be able to do from what it actually does. Some mission organizations do have certain outputs verified by third-party evaluators (see discuss of ROI Ministry later in this report).

While we wish the evidence base was stronger, there is enough that we feel confident to give a few qualified recommendations based on relevant metrics.

We think this space is valuable despite issues with the evidence

It's healthy to be skeptical when hearing claims of large impact – it is certainly possible that some of the high estimates cited so far are overly optimistic. On the other hand, there are at least two counter-considerations for why we should temper our skepticism about the claims of exponential growth in church-planting movements:

(1) Many movements reporting large numbers are deliberately not seeking outside funding. They thus don't have a financial motive for inflating impact numbers, especially since most are in contexts where severe persecution comes from the dominant religion and/or government.

(2) The very fact that in church-planting movements, churches are multiplying rapidly is itself evidence for the genuineness of a decent number of the conversions, as it shows that a large number of its people are evangelistic. Particularly in areas with a risk of persecution, a high level of faith commitment is needed to even profess to be a Christian, let alone to go out and start evangelizing others as people in CPMs are doing.

What’s the right metric?

Even if impact data is accurate, what we really care about is whether it is truly an indication that faithful disciples and healthy churches are the result. Which metrics are the best indicators of true impact?

Some outcomes we could measure are

Number of commitments (“decisions” for Christ)
Number of baptisms
Church attendance (or attendance at worship groups or discipleship groups)
Number of people who report positive changes on other spiritual metrics, including a sense of feeling loved by God, or having a relationship with Jesus (for more, see Eido Research’s KIF)

“Decisions for Christ” is a frequently used but problematic spiritual metric.

Besides looking at ultimate outcomes, we can also look at the cost-effectiveness of the inputs. For example:

Number of encounters with the gospel and scripture tracts

Number of church planters trained

When it comes to outcomes, a generally unreliable metric you might hear nonprofits and church groups cite is the number of people who made “decisions for Christ”. One problem with this metric is that sometimes, people will claim to be making a decision for Christ to be polite or out of a desire not to bring shame on the evangelists; in some cases, the same people could be making this same “decision” over and over every time a new missionary comes to town. Or some may make “decisions” in response to a momentary feeling of inspiration that doesn’t last or result in any tangible change in their lives.

The number of baptisms is a better metric because it avoids double-counting and requires more commitment than simply praying a prayer in response to an altar call, particularly in contexts in which infant baptism isn’t a common practice. This metric does, though, have the weakness that it doesn’t tell us if people are growing and bearing fruit in their lives.

Church attendance can also be a useful metric, though as with baptisms, it doesn’t necessarily indicate the commitment level of the attendees.

Many Christian nonprofits develop their own holistic spiritual metrics (Hope International’s HOPE Quotient is one example). These metrics take numerous forms. Some can combine a range of smaller metrics to provide a holistic score. Others, like the Kingdom Impact Framework from James Waters and Eido Research, use careful surveys to measure how respondents feel about spiritual matters. An example of this is asking respondents the question “On a scale of 1 to 10, how loved do you feel by God?” and measuring any changes after a program is implemented. There have been efforts in recent years by groups like Eido Research and James Water’s KIF to standardize spiritual metrics. While having sector-wide data on spiritual metrics would be ideal, it is not available.

Our view, supported by experts in the field, is that the most strategic metrics are the number of baptisms and average church attendance. While in some contexts, baptism and church attendance aren't indicators of true transformation, they are fairly good (though very imperfect) indicators of true impact in the context we're looking at, which is primarily unreached people groups in which some form of persecution exists, and especially those unreached people groups in which a multiplying church-planting movement is the result. As noted earlier, the fact that movements are growing through a rapid multiplication of churches is itself evidence for the genuineness of a good number of the conversions.

Where is our evidence from?

General Evidence for Effective Types of Programs

The general evidence on effective types of missionary efforts draws largely on the observations of missions experts like David Garrison, Justin Long, and members of the 24:14 Coalition , as well as audits (e.g., by the International Missions Board) of large church-planting movements tracking long-term impact.

Evidence for Effective Charities

While there is not yet a charity evaluator comparable to GiveWell in its rigor, it is still possible to make a rational decision about where to give.

One of our main sources for advice on where to give is a philanthropic advisor who was recommended to us by a prominent member of the 24:14 Coalition as being knowledgeable about connecting donors with potentially high-impact giving opportunities. He has advised Professionals in Christian Philanthropy, the Magnolia Foundation, and First Fruit, and leads various giving collaborations of wealthy Christian families and foundations. (He asked that his name not be used, as he doesn’t give out public recommendations.)

Additional sources of possibly effective organizations include:

ROI Ministry, which verifies nonprofits’ impact data with the help of Calvin Edwards and Co. While their methodology has flaws (e.g., looking at the impact of the average dollar donated instead of the marginal dollar, not considering counterfactuals, allowing charities to hand-pick specific programs to be evaluated), their reports can serve as supporting evidence for nonprofits we believe to be effective on other grounds.
Doulos Partners. Though it’s not focused on making recommendations to donors, Doulos Partners, which describes itself as a “missions mutual fund”, carefully chooses a small number of effective nonprofits to support, so an organization having been chosen by Doulos is good evidence of its effectiveness.

Doulos itself has been vetted by ROI Ministries. While ROI’s vetting didn’t verify the effectiveness of the individual partner organizations, it did show that Doulos was honestly reporting its partners' impact numbers and didn't have any conflicts of interest. We can thus be fairly confident of an organization’s effectiveness if it has Doulos’s seal of approval, so to speak.

All Access International, which, like Doulos Partners, chooses nonprofits that it believes will be the most effective, so a nonprofit’s being chosen by AAI is evidence in its favor. AAI is known to follow a strategic, evidence-based approach to selecting programs and conducts some of its own monitoring and evaluation.
Recommendations of other knowledgeable people in the missions world.
Organizations we have direct acquaintance with that we know to have an evidence -based approach.

Some arguments against our advice

Some may disagree with the very idea of being strategic when it comes to evangelism and would hold that if it is God who redeems people, then we shouldn't try to strategize when thinking about where or how to do evangelism.
Some might believe that evangelism is done best when combined with a heavy emphasis on poverty alleviation, which is witnessed by Jesus’s combined focus on evangelism and healing and serving the poor.

Response:

Some of the high-impact evangelistic efforts we’ve described are taking place within the context of ministry that is quite holistic; for example, one of the ways the aforementioned Bhojpuri movement grew was through serious efforts to serve communities and lift people out of poverty.

Having said that, we don’t think that missionary efforts necessary have to have an emphasis on poverty alleviation in order to be worthy of support. While our view is that scripture teaches that all of these areas are important; however, this does not mean that every charity or mission must work in all of these three areas. We draw inspiration from Romans 12:4-6

“For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us.” (Emphasis added)

The most effective charities at alleviating extreme material poverty are plausibly not the same as the most impactful ones at evangelism, so you may be able to help more people escape poverty and more people hear the gospel by splitting your charity budget between one of our recommended poverty-fighting charities and a group that most effectively preaches Christ (which may nonetheless have a poverty alleviation component) than by choosing a single nonprofit that heavily emphasizes both components. (For more, see our report on extreme poverty.)

Since the form of Christianity that has often been most conducive to producing church-planting movements is one that regards the Bible as the sole authority for theology and practice, some who regard other authorities such as church tradition as having a crucial role could regard such movements as missing something of importance.

Is there a big difference in impact between different interventions?

The average annual cost to support a Western cross-cultural missionary is $60,000. In contrast, the cost of supporting an indigenous missionary is less than $2,000, and this is far less still if the indigenous missionary is bi-vocational and needs money only for training.
The cost per baptism is roughly 1,000 times higher for some countries than others, suggesting that where missionary efforts are focused matters tremendously. (While cost-per-baptism isn’t a perfect metric, it is definitely indicative of a significant difference when it varies so dramatically from one part of the world to another).
The rapid growth seen in DMM and T4T approaches is unlike anything commonly seen in traditional evangelism and church planting. The number of people who are part of church-planting movements, most of which have originated with these approaches, is increasing at 23% annually according to one estimate. In contrast, the mere 1.17% growth rate of Christianity as a whole doesn’t even keep up with the world’s population growth rate of 1.18%.

What's most needed to contribute to this problem?

Get the larger unreached people groups up to a Christian minority large enough to be able to reach others in their population. The threshold often used for no longer being classified as “unreached” is 5% of the population identifying as Christian and 2% being evangelistic Christians.
Funding for organizers of movements, and potentially the church planters themselves.

What skill sets and resources are most needed?

Many reading this are distant from unreached people groups, not only geographically but also culturally. For us outsiders, the most effective roles don’t typically involve actually being an overseas missionary. This is true not only because indigenous church leadership is more effective, but also because it is increasingly the case that most new church-planting movements are being catalyzed by other movements. Most of the need for outsiders is not for missionaries on the front lines, but for people to serve in indirect ways, to be what Dave Coles and Stan Parks call “Movement Servants”.

The best direct roles for Westerners and other outsiders who aren't from the culture of the people being reached might include:

Business entrepreneurs to help movements use business to reach new areas
People with technology skills who can develop useful software
Translation partners to help movements create translations and audio and text versions of the Bible as well as help with distribution.
People with good soft skills who are able to speak charismatically to Christian audiences and network with other Christians (especially churches).
People with monitoring and evaluation skills to better determine the effectiveness of various programs
Nonprofit Entrepreneurs to set up engagements with people groups and coordinate with donors
Catalysts who train and raise up leaders from among the indigenous population. (As noted earlier, the need for Westerners and other outsiders in this role is decreasing.)
Money to support effective organizations and projects. This could include:

For training movement leaders.
For various supplies – as just one example, church planters needing to frequently travel through difficult terrain may need a motorcycle or bicycle.
For various projects assisting the poor in the community. Besides being a good thing in itself, this is often essential in places where there is initial hostility towards Christians.
For business start-ups to help movements start work in new areas. This is particularly cost-effective because the businesses can use their profits to start other missional businesses.

For more information on ways to use your skills to impact missions, check out the 24:14 community’s website.

As for money, it should be noted that there are both appropriate and inappropriate uses of money when supporting missionary efforts. Outside funding should be short-term and intermittent, as ongoing funding (especially paying pastor’s salaries) can prevent a church-planting movement from developing and becoming self-sustaining. Long-term payment of church planter salaries can encourage the pursuit of church planting as a means of financial gain, and it can discourage lay members of the church from taking an active leadership role in evangelizing and starting daughter churches, something that is crucial to the development of a movement.

Next steps for planning a high-impact career in missions?

Talk to Christians running or evaluating impactful mission organizations, and reverse-engineer their career path.
Attend a conference with Christian missionaries (e.g. Accord Network Annual Conference).
Take a learning trip to an unreached people group alongside a church-planting movement.
Sign up for 1-1 mentorship with Christians funding or directing DMMs.
Get in touch with members of the 24:14 network via the Use My Skills page to learn how to support movements.

Some potentially highly effective organizations*

The question of which organizations would be expected to have the largest impact with additional funding is a difficult one to answer, especially as there is no equivalent of GiveWell for missions organizations.

One challenge in making donations is that not every organization that is having an impact has room for more funding, so donations may be funding projects that are going to be funded anyway. This is why in addition to considering who has been vetted by third parties like Doulos Partners, AAI, and ROI Ministry, we give special attention to a small number of experts who are well-connected and able to make reasonable predictions about where the most strategic places to donate are at the moment.

Unless noted otherwise, the charities listed below are ones that plant indigenously led churches and that are generally movement-oriented in their approaches.

Charities we are fairly confident are effective places to donate

As mentioned earlier, one of our main sources is a philanthropic advisor who had been recommended to us by a prominent member of the 24:14 Coalition. In an email correspondence on December 7, 2023, he recommended the following organizations as effective places to donate at the moment:

Final Command (Sahel region of Africa)

Lifeway Mission International (East Africa)

One Challenge (Southeast Asia)

Venture (Southeast Asia)

There is also good reason to think that New Generations and Biglife Ministries are very effective places to donate, as both All Access International (AAI) and Doulos Partners have vetted them and chosen to include them among the small number of missions organizations they fund:

New Generations

(specific program funded by AAI is found here)

Biglife Ministries

(specific program funded by AAI is found here)

Potentially effective charities we can’t confidently recommend at the moment

Besides these recommended charities, there are some others that may be effective, but we don’t know enough about their effectiveness and/or their room for more funding to be able to confidently recommend them at this point. This is not a comprehensive list:

Transform East Alliance (Supported and vetted by All Access International)

The Timothy Initiative (Supported and vetted by Doulos Partners)

DOOR International (Supported and vetted by Doulos Partners)

Every Home For Christ (Supported and vetted by Doulos Partners)

E3 Partners (Supported and vetted by Doulos Partners)

Faith Comes By Hearing (Recommended by ROI Ministries; does not do church planting, but rather provides a service to church-planting efforts, including movements)

Global Media Outreach (Recommended by ROI Ministries; does not do church planting but rather online evangelism and discipleship with individuals)

Jesus Film Harvest Partners (Recommended by ROI Ministries; largely isn’t movement-oriented)

Jesus Film Project (Recommended by ROI Ministries; does not do church planting, but rather provides a service to church-planting efforts, including movements)

The Mailbox Club (Recommended by ROI Ministries; largely isn’t movement-oriented)

500K (popular among Christians in the CFI network and known to follow an evidence-based approach; largely isn’t movement-oriented - we are confident that it is effective, but not confident that it is as effective as the top movement-oriented charities)

Mission India (recommended by Ed Michaelson of 500K; largely isn’t movement-oriented)

Reaching Unreached Nations

Beyond

Frontiers

Sport Catalysts

New Harvest Global Ministry

TDMM

Asian Partners International

*Our level of certainty on the best charities to donate to is substantially lower than for our top charities in the area of global poverty and health.

Who are some Christians in the CFI network working on this?

Ed Michaelson, who works with 500K, an organization that funds and measures the impact of potentially effective church-planting organizations, in addition to starting its own church plants.
Lane Kipp, who runs All Access International, which supports high-impact efforts aimed at starting church-planting movements.
Various others who earn-to-give

More Resources

Other Resources created by Christians in the CFI network

Interested in talking to someone about tackling this problem with your career?

Sign up for 1-on-1 mentorship. We’ll pair you with a Christian who can talk to you about how to make an impact in this problem area.

Get 1-on-1 Advice

Notes:

[1] Given the vast and rapidly-evolving nature of movements and global missions broadly, we expect to update this research every six to twelve months. If you are a missions expert and would like to contribute, we are grateful for your feedback and suggestions (submit here)↑

[2] Garrison, David: Church Planting Movements. Office of Overseas Operations, International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. 1999. https://moredisciples.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/cpm_booklet_standard_english.pdf. p. 7

[3] Garrison, David: Church Planting Movements. Office of Overseas Operations, International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. 1999. https://moredisciples.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/cpm_booklet_standard_english.pdf. pgs. 27–31

Missions - Full Report