Reformed Missions Board or Organisations

Puritanhead · #1 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 09:29 AM

Are there any explicitly Reformed Missions Board or Organisations? What about more specifically Reformed Baptist missionary groups.

I'm thinking about missions-emphasis in my future seminary studies.

VirginiaHuguenot · #2 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 12:17 PM

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America has a few missions websites here, here and here.

Information on missions in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church can be found here and here.

The Presbyterian Church in America's mission organization is found here.

Sorry I am not familiar with Reformed Baptist missions organizations. Hope this helps.

jaybird0827 · #3 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 12:26 PM

Did some Google searching and navigating. Came up with this.

tcalbrecht · #4 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 01:56 PM

Presbyterian Mission International

Presbyterian Evangelistic Fellowship

R. Scott Clark · #5 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 04:30 PM

Ryan,

I know this might seem tongue-in-cheek, but it's not. The only Reformed missions organization is the visible, instiutional church. He authorized the visible church to preach Christ, administer the sacraments and discipline (Matt 28:18-20; Matt 18).

Yes, there are other organizations doing "missions," but that is, at best, an irregular situation.

I hope you will re-think the premise of your question. The question is what Reformed denominations are doing the most effective job of planting churches overseas (which is all "missions" is)?

The PCA Mission to the World is aggressively planting churches. My own federation supports a number of church planters overseas, but we're not very well organized. The OPC has an aggressive missions program. Some of the smaller groups in NAPARC have proportionally fewer church planters overseas.

Best,

rsc

Quote:

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Are there any explicitly Reformed Missions Board or Organisations? What about more specifically Reformed Baptist missionary groups.

I'm thinking about missions-emphasis in my future seminary studies.

tcalbrecht · #6 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Ryan,

I know this might seem tongue-in-cheek, but it's not. The only Reformed missions organization is the visible, instiutional church. He authorized the visible church to preach Christ, administer the sacraments and discipline (Matt 28:18-20; Matt 18).

Yes, there are other organizations doing "missions," but that is, at best, an irregular situation.

I hope you will re-think the premise of your question. The question is what Reformed denominations are doing the most effective job of planting churches overseas (which is all "missions" is)?

The PCA Mission to the World is aggressively planting churches. My own federation supports a number of church planters overseas, but we're not very well organized. The OPC has an aggressive missions program. Some of the smaller groups in NAPARC have proportionally fewer church planters overseas.

Best,

rsc

Dr. Clark,

A couple questions.

The PCA BCO says, "The Church recognizes the right of individuals and congregations to labor through other agencies in fulfilling the Great Commission." (14-6.6)

By the phrase "other agencies" does not the PCA recognize the legitimate operation of what we might term "non-ecclesiastical organizations" (parachurch) in the work of spreading the gospel?

Was Machen wrong when he began the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions? Was that merely "irregular" or did Machen have the constitutional and biblical right to start an independent agency as, I believe, he argued.

[Edited on 8-24-2006 by tcalbrecht]

R. Scott Clark · #7 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Quote:

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Ryan,

I know this might seem tongue-in-cheek, but it's not. The only Reformed missions organization is the visible, instiutional church. He authorized the visible church to preach Christ, administer the sacraments and discipline (Matt 28:18-20; Matt 18).

Yes, there are other organizations doing "missions," but that is, at best, an irregular situation.

I hope you will re-think the premise of your question. The question is what Reformed denominations are doing the most effective job of planting churches overseas (which is all "missions" is)?

The PCA Mission to the World is aggressively planting churches. My own federation supports a number of church planters overseas, but we're not very well organized. The OPC has an aggressive missions program. Some of the smaller groups in NAPARC have proportionally fewer church planters overseas.

Best,

rsc

Dr. Clark,

A couple questions.

The PCA BCO says, "The Church recognizes the right of individuals and congregations to labor through other agencies in fulfilling the Great Commission." (14-6.6)

By the phrase "other agencies" does not the PCA recognize the legitimate operation of what we might term "non-ecclesiastical organizations" (parachurch) in the work of spreading the gospel?

Was Machen wrong when he began the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions? Was that merely "irregular" or did Machen have the constitutional and biblical right to start an independent agency as, I believe, he argued.

[Edited on 8-24-2006 by tcalbrecht]

Good and fair questions.

I did think of Machen as I wrote. The IBFM was irregular. I think, under other circumstances, he would have done differently. I don't think the IBFM was the most Presbyterian way to go about things. Given the circumstances, I don't know what options he had and the libs forced his hand eventually.

As to other agencies, that's a broad-minded policy, but not perhaps the most churchly policy in the world. If "missions" means "medical missions," then fine, other agencies must do that. It's not the church's business to start hospitals.

If there are secondary or support services needed (flying airplanes; transport; logistics; housing etc) that are not ecclesiastical in nature, then fine other agencies may and should do those things.

So it depends upon how one defines "mission." If it means: "preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments and discipline overseas," that is ecclesiastical, not para-ecclesiastical work.

rsc

Pergamum · #8 (**permalink**) 09-27-2006, 05:31 PM

"I don't think the IBFM was the most Presbyterian way to go about things."

What is the Presbyerian way of doing things?

"If "missions" means "medical missions," then fine, other agencies must do that. It's not the church's business to start hospitals.

If there are secondary or support services needed (flying airplanes; transport; logistics; housing etc) that are not ecclesiastical in nature, then fine other agencies may and should do those things."

A portion of your church's funds go to pay the light bill I am sure. This is not directly related to evangelism. So too, even many church planting missions use some of their funds for acts of mercy.

I agree that church-planting is the primary focus, but some are not elder-qualified and yet still desire to serve in"mercy" and "service" capacities like medical, piloting, teaching M kids, etc.

How do we stress church planting as the main focus without poo-pooing these others things (which it sounds like is being done)?

Also, in many closed countries, only "mercy missions" are allowed. How would such a Reformed entity that only stresses church planting through "visible" churches ever penetrate some of these resistant areas (part of the answer is...that most are not).

"...fine other organizations may and should do these things...."

Other orgs are engaging in the works that Presbyterians are not willing to do. Sadly.

I know many Reformed folks who seek independant mission boards as a means of fulfilling their miss. calling due to a dearth sometimes in a Presbyterian presence or placement for them.