Thread: Mission boards, mission societies, sending agencies and voluntary associations

What do you think of group efforts in missions?

---mission boards
---mission societies
---voluntary associations of churches for Great Commission purposes

What must we do in order to "do missions" correctly?

What is the place of such a society/board/association?

What is the place of s sending church?

How is the missionary to be accountable to each?

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What do you think of group efforts in missions?

---mission boards
---mission societies
---voluntary associations of churches for Great Commission purposes

What must we do in order to "do missions" correctly?

What is the place of such a society/board/association?

What is the place of s sending church?

How is the missionary to be accountable to each?

I appreciate Thornwell's insights:

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What do you think of group efforts in missions?

---mission boards
---mission societies
---voluntary associations of churches for Great Commission purposes

What must we do in order to "do missions" correctly?

What is the place of such a society/board/association?

What is the place of s sending church?

How is the missionary to be accountable to each?

I appreciate Thornwell's insights:

Thornwell says:

It appears to us that this whole system involves an abandonment of the great principle that it is the duty of the Church, as such, in her ecclesiastical capacity, to conduct every department of the work which the Saviour (sic) has committed to her.

I noice he uses the word Church (big C) instead of little c church.

How does this affect our view of mission societies as Christ's global body tries to cooperate together for joint efforts in missions?

I think that Mission organizations or societies do at times have greater resources and capabilities than local parishes to aid the work of missions. If there be a consensus regarding the necessity of missions work, exceptions can always be made.

This is of course a personal opinion of mine.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What do you think of group efforts in missions?

---mission boards
---mission societies
---voluntary associations of churches for Great Commission purposes

What must we do in order to "do missions" correctly?

What is the place of such a society/board/association?

What is the place of s sending church?

How is the missionary to be accountable to each?

I appreciate Thornwell's insights:

Thornwell says:

It appears to us that this whole system involves an abandonment of the great principle that it is the duty of the Church, as such, in her ecclesiastical capacity, to conduct every department of the work which the Saviour (sic) has committed to her.

I noice he uses the word Church (big C) instead of little c church.

How does this affect our view of mission societies as Christ's global body tries to cooperate together for joint efforts in missions?

I would expect that there would be variety in the answers given to that question coming from differing ecclesiastical perspectives; e.g. Congregationally ruled Baptists, Elder Ruled Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc.

Originally Posted by rbcbob

I would expect that there would be variety in the answers given to that question coming from differing ecclesiastical perspectives; e.g. Congregationally ruled Baptists, Elder Ruled Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc.

You are right that our view of Church polity may impact how we view mission boards.
If I understand how the Protestant Reformed Churches do things; they have an interesting hybrid of the Congregational and Presbyterian systems. They have a mission board that is the creature of the synod. Fields they approve to be evangelized are put under the oversite of the consistory of a particular congregation.
Differing ecclesiastical perspective should not divert us from trying to follow the pattern of scripture. The scriptural pattern sould seem to be that missionaries are set out in teams of two. Why don't we routinely follow this pattern today.

Originally Posted by rbcbob

I would expect that there would be variety in the answers given to that question coming from differing ecclesiastical perspectives; e.g. Congregationally ruled Baptists, Elder Ruled Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc.

Pergamum,

Since you are a Reformed Baptist, I highly recommend this series of articles by a Reformed Baptist on local church relations: Interchurch relationship

The author is a Reformed Baptist pastor and he evaluates the different models practiced by different churches. He categorizes them into four groups:

The Episcopalian/Bishopric Model
The Denominational Model
The Associational Model
The Fellowship Model

He advocates the Fellowship Model and also offers a critique of the arguments used for the Associational Model by some Reformed Baptists.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 02:05:00 EST-----

And since I'm not a Reformed Baptist, I obviously don't agree with his critique of Reformed/Presbyterian polity.

Blessings!

Originally Posted by yeutter

Originally Posted by rbcbob

I would expect that there would be variety in the answers given to that question coming from differing ecclesiastical perspectives; e.g. Congregationally ruled Baptists, Elder Ruled Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc.

You are right that our view of Church polity may impact how we view mission boards.
If I understand how the Protestant Reformed Churches do things; they have an interesting hybrid of the Congregational and Presbyterian systems. They have a mission board that is the creature of the synod. Fields they approve to be evangelized are put under the oversite of the consistory of a particular congregation.
Differing ecclesiastical perspective should not divert us from trying to follow the pattern of scripture. The scriptural pattern sould seem to be that missionaries are set out in teams of two. Why don't we routinely follow this pattern today.

Huh, teams of two?


Can we start another thread on this?


Just because Jesus assigned his disciples to follow this pattern once, doesn't make it normative now. We also carry more than these teams of two did? And we take our whole families into missions also (that would be a team of 10 for some on the PB).

Let's start a separate thread on this.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 02:06:34 EST-----

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by rbcbob

I appreciate Thornwell's insights:

Thornwell says:

It appears to us that this whole system involves an abandonment of the great principle that it is the duty of the Church, as such, in her ecclesiastical capacity, to conduct every department of the work which the Saviour (sic) has committed to her.

I noice he uses the word Church (big C) instead of little c church.

How does this affect our view of mission societies as Christ's global body tries to cooperate together for joint efforts in missions?

I would expect that there would be variety in the answers given to that question coming from differing ecclesiastical perspectives; e.g. Congregationally ruled Baptists, Elder Ruled Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc.

As a Calvy Baptist, how do YOU think it should be done?

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by yeutter

Originally Posted by rbcbob

I would expect that there would be variety in the answers given to that question coming from differing ecclesiastical perspectives; e.g. Congregationally ruled Baptists, Elder Ruled Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc.

You are right that our view of Church polity may impact how we view mission boards.
If I understand how the Protestant Reformed Churches do things; they have an interesting hybrid of the Congregational and Presbyterian systems. They have a mission board that is the creature of the synod. Fields they approve to be evangelized are put under the oversite of the consistory of a particular congregation.
Differing ecclesiastical perspective should not divert us from trying to follow the pattern of scripture. The scriptural pattern sould seem to be that missionaries are set out in teams of two. Why don't we routinely follow this pattern today.

Huh, teams of two?


Can we start another thread on this?


Just because Jesus assigned his disciples to follow this pattern once, doesn't make it normative now. We also carry more than these teams of two did? And we take our whole families into missions also (that would be a team of 10 for some on the PB).

Let's start a separate thread on this.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 02:06:34 EST-----

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Thornwell says:




I noice he uses the word Church (big C) instead of little c church.

How does this affect our view of mission societies as Christ's global body tries to cooperate together for joint efforts in missions?

I would expect that there would be variety in the answers given to that question coming from differing ecclesiastical perspectives; e.g. Congregationally ruled Baptists, Elder Ruled Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc.

As a Calvy Baptist, how do YOU think it should be done?

What exactly is a Calvy Baptist?

I use the term Calvy Baptist for a 5 point Calvinistic Baptist.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I use the term Calvy Baptist for a 5 point Calvinistic Baptist.

That descriptor is woefully inadequate and vague.

That's your opinion and would make a great separate thread.

For purposes of having a broad net by which to catch all baptistic persons who hold to the sovereingty of God, the term Calvy Baptist works just fine.

I'm not sure there is a right answer; although I lean heavily on the responsibility of the local church in missions.

I have no problem with like-minded churches combining expertise, financial resources, and common beliefs for the purpose of sending missionaries. Let's face it, some smaller congregations are not able to fund a missionary completely. Combining their efforts with other like-minded churches allows them to participate in larger missions works. I like the idea of the local church control of missions more than boards, although it's not a hill I am willing to die on.

What do you mean by "local church control"?

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What do you mean by "local church control"?

The local church has the primary responsibility for calling, equipping, and sending missionaries.

CALLING: Many local churches benefit from an outside source of confirmation such that the local church AND a sending agency confirms one's calling by means of a candidate school, etc. Most protestant missions sending agencies heavily take into account a local church's recommendation as they conduct their own evaluation.

EQUIPPING: Can't a local church fulfill that responsibility by utilizing those outisde the church for specialized training (such as in theology, cross cultural issues, and linguistics)? We do the same for pastors at seminaries? Do any of your pastors know about how to arrange visas, or deal with culture shock? Most local churches are not equipped.

SENDING: Most Protestant mission societies say that a local church sends their missionary through them and they are a servant to the local church in its sending.


The local church MUST be involved in missions, but many calvy baptists think that to do so they must throw out the many resources of the established missions sending agencies. One does not lose one's autonomy, but rather gains wisdom by consulting those who deal everyday in specialized areas, such as cross-cultural missions.

Pergy,

I don't dispute the validity of anything you said. Those things certainly make good sense. The fact is that most churches view of missions doesn't go beyond their missions budget. IMHO a weak commitment to missions is indicative of a weak view of the Gospel.

Ideally a local church will have a well defined view of missions. They will be active in looking within the church for qualified men and women*, commending them for service, and making sure they are trained/equipped. The latter may mean the use of outside agencies (seminaries, language schools, survival training etc.). Mission societies may be a good tool for identifying areas in which to minister, but the authority over the missionary is the local church, not a mission society or agency.

I'll give you a good example of missions run right. The church that founded us sent a missionary to the Russia, along with his wife and children. This gentleman was teaching in Baptist seminary for local Russian pastors. Sometime during his stay in Russia he strayed into false teaching. This false teaching was serious enough to question his salvation. His sending church, which supported him 100%, pulled his support immediately, except for expenses associated with travel back to the United States. This action on their part may or may not have occurred as quickly as it did had the local church not had authority.

*I have no problem with female missionaries, provided they are not fulfilling pastoral roles.

Yes, I think we are agreed. I am just making sure that you are not one who is totally against even the idea of mission orgs as they serve local churches. It sounds like you are not.

I am trying to refine my views of how local churches and sending agencies can better work together, because I believe that both are needed.

I, too, view the place of the local church very highly. But some, in an effort to show high regard for the local church almost seem to cut their legs off underneath them by needlessly restricting the "how" of how they send missionaries and, trying to go it alone, they are ill-equipped to run the finances and visas of the missionary and the missionary suffers due to overly strict baptist ecclesiology and lack of qualified staff inmost local churches (deacons working on a voluntarily basis, most of them with no training, etc)


I am sure you've heard the statements: If we count missionary societies as parachurches, then many will say that we need no parachurches and we have everything we need in local churches to send and train and take care of our people on the field and we should not be using any sort of group outside the local church for missions, thus making it sound like missionary societies are something we should be apologizing for rather than thankful for their existence.

I am trying to get to the bottom of these very normal calvy baptist sentiments, which only begrudgingly admits that there might be a use for missionary societies (but only because the churches aren't presently doing their roles).

Why not use "means", as William Carey suggested, by voluntarily associating missionaries together into societies, just as Carey's Enquiry suggested we do (and which helped to launch the Modrn Missions Movement)?