Quote:
Originally Posted by Pergamum  Sorry, but I would not see something like this as a giving priority.
Because I am being a party-pooper, I will give my reasons:
-If this support money is to come from a missions budget, something in Asia or anywhere where lack of linguistic and geographical access to the Gospel is present should be prioritized. Moribund country churches in rural America are not a #1 priority.
-Even if we consider the whole world a "mission field" I would prioritize other geographical areas in the world as having much higher priority for mission funding than rural america.
-Even in American, rural America is overall more God-fearing than inner-cities. Even if one gave to "North American missions" and insisted that America was still a worthy mission field to spend one's mission budget on, then why prioritize rural America versus urban America. Urban America is much more needy. City churches are a greater need.
-Also, the website says "denominational issues are avoided." While I would support a statement like this perhaps in the Middle East where I am glad for any Gospel teaching, I cannot support a statement like this in America, where many choices abound.
-It appears that this group is focused on buildings. Keeping churches alive means to keep buildings open it sounds like perhaps. Many reformed groups consist of 6-8 families in a private living room for worship. This is proff that a solid church is not building-dependant. One does not need financial assistance to keep a quaint old rural building open.
-It might be better for some of these old country churches to die out. Many are havens of a cultural Christianity with no solid Gospel teaching. Let'em close.
-Their doctrinal statement on the Atonement says that Christ died as a propitiation for the sins of the "whole world." It appears that they mean this as every single person instead of both Jew and Gentile.
Sorry if I am opinionated on this issue, but please if you have a missions budget please prioritize those areas that are neediest in the world and not a North American non-denominational effort to keep moribund churches alive.
The country where I am at has 127 unreached people groups even without counting my immediate province which has 200 groups without Scripture.
The Middle East and over parts of SE Asia has cities of multiple millions and no documented beleivers. I know of several people groups that do not have a single beleiver.
I believe we ought to prioritize these neediest places and to use a church's missions budget for an effort like village missions would be a poor stewardship. |
The reason why my friend's church has been presented with this ministry by the senior pastor is because the senior pastor's son has been recently selected by Village Missions to pastor a rural church.
As for your passion for international missions, I applaud you for that, but I do want to caution that the passion should be tempered to avoid contempt against home missions. And neither home missions nor international missions have any more priority over the other in terms of spiritual neediness. And moribund rural churches have just as much spiritual need for reformation and revival as urban churches and international missions. The Gospel needs to be shared with all people everywhere, and it is not our place to determine where the Gospel should go and where it shouldn't go. Yes, please promote your work where you are at and communicate the desperate Gospel needs for prayer and support. But not at the cost of diminishing someone else's calling to minister in no less an important field where the Gospel is just as needed.
Press on, brother. Be not discouraged because the laborers are so few when the work is overwhelming. But be encouraged that the Lord is already victorious, the Church is already victorious, and the Gospel is already victorious. And be encouraged that your labors are no less needy, valued or loved by the Lord than someone else's ministry. Nor look at someone else's miinstry as being less needy, valued or loved by the Lord than yours.