Quote:
Originally Posted by Pergamum  Rich, thanks I agree - even though I have no problem with the word "ministry."
I do see that "demystifying" missions seems to help people get a grasp on who missionaries are and what they do. They do tasks overseas for Christ, often the same tasks that they could be doing at home. Much of it is very mundane and the thing that makes them "missionaries" is that (1) they do it full time and for Christ (which all people should do in all their labors) and (2) they often do it in poor countries and need a little extra help from supporting churches to finance their efforts.
They do translation, nursing, teaching, computer work, even grounds-keeping and properties management.
Perhaps a lot of this "vocation" work is called "ministry" because it is done in communities where "missions work" is occurring and also (I suspect the main reason) is because they need funds to sustain that work (the local economy won't help them) and so they ask for funds from US churches and US churches will only support "ministries" and not vocations.
I am curious about feedback on this particular point. |
I agree that most "mission work" is precisely this type.
Actually, I think the reason it is called "ministry" and "mission work" is for the same "sacred/secular" separation that existed in the Medieval Church by and large and the fact that we've lost a good part of what makes the Church essentially Evangelistic.
A former Pastor used to preach on his belief that we weren't Marines or Airmen first but Christians. Whenever he would pray for the men deployed, he would only pray for their ability to preach the Gospel to others while they were deployed as if that was their vocation while they were there. No prayer for mission success or diligence - simply that they spread the Gospel. The idea that men and women actually have a vocation throughout the week and being in the "ministry of the Word" all week long where they tried to preach to people in their work would actually interfere with their vocation was completely lost on him. It really is the common idea that, unless you're actually talking about Jesus with another person, that you're doing a necessary "evil" (work to make money) but the real service only comes when you're actually logging hours for the Church.
Which of the two is a better example of a Christian:
1. the Chaplain who got Court-martialed because he violated the UCMJ and wore his uniform at a public event and then paraded himself around as a victim of religious discrimination or
2. the hyper-competent Officer who has impeccable integrity and takes care of his Marines and is beloved by all his men, keeps his cool under fire, and is compassionate towards all and treats them all as image-bearers of the Creator.
Quote:
|
And, what should we call all the others? "Vocationers?".... and how would this affect funding for all the support workers needed on the "mission field"? Would we then call people who work with Wycliffe Bible Translators missionaries, or only Christians who have a vocation? And since these folks need home-country support to help them pay bills while translating the Bible into oompa-Loompa or whatnot, do we present their efforts to the church as Ministries or as jobs that do not give wages (thus requiring church support)?
|
I don't think we have to "call" them anything. James and Jude (the half-brothers of Jesus) were content to call themselves bond-slaves. I like that term. I think it's great that people want to serve in their vocation to help their fellow-men in another country. God doesn't need their service, their neighbor does and I'm overjoyed that men and women want to serve in this capacity. I think we're forced to call them missionaries because, lamentably, many Churches wouldn't understand or support them if they didn't have this moniker. But we're talking about the way things ought to be and not the way they really are.
Quote:
|
There does seem to be a difference in managing a hotel chain in the US and trying to do it for the glory of God and calling this a vocation and giving up that job in the States to go and manage an orphanage or missionary kid hostel overseas (relocating to a Third World country, relying on donations and denying one's self of some USA pleasures to do much of the same job for a different target population). While I agree that both can be done for the glory of God, the one who travels overseas may need some added church support and so I suspect that the proliferation of items that count as "ministry" is partly due to this need to fund a "missions infrastructure" overseas. Therefore, I still have no problems with people speaking of their "ministries of helps".
|
Again, this is mainly because of the bifurcation of Christianity that exists and is the only way they would be supported in this activity. I understand the reason why it happens but the fact that it needs a moniker to be supported speaks to our impoverishment as Christians and not our strength.
Anyhow, I think I've flogged the point sufficiently.
Bottom line for me in my answer to Heidi is that I didn't really find any of the views of ministry satisfactory. I understand there are organizations that exist but that's a different story.
Every blessing!
Rich