Thread: Should seminaries be training more missionaries?

While there are still many to evangelize in the Western world, the people here generally have access to the gospel, whether it be through neighbors or local churches or TV and radio programs.

Many of those who are not Christians are those who have already rejected the gospel.

In contrast, there are many people outside the Western world who have far less access, if any access at all, to the gospel. There are places where there is one Christian believer for every million, and no local churches. There are many who don't have a complete Bible in their own language.

Since the Great Commission was given to the apostles to go and make disciples of all nations, and given that the need for a gospel witness is SO much higher in other countries, shouldn't we expect that a great majority of our seminary graduates will be sent out overseas as missionaries as opposed to serving in churches in the Western world? Or at least a very respectable minority such as 25-33% of graduates serving somewhere here "Christians" are far outnumbered by "non-Christians?" At least 20%..it is not too much to expect that 20% of seminary graduates serve overseas among the least-reached.

I notice degrees in counseling popping up. Music ministries abound. Yet, less than 5% of all seminary graduates end up among the least-reached of the world (and a recent survey on church budgets calculated that less than one half of 1 cent for every hundred dollars spent by american churches go towards pioneer/frontier missions among the least-reached). We here sermons on stewardship, but isn't it bad stewardship on the part of the worldwide body of Christ to horde 80-90% of its resources in one small place and what can we do?

Why? And what can we do to change this?

My husband and I are both MK's, and we both find that our view of missions is extremely mixed. You'd think we'd be all on board for increasing the number of missionaries. But it is very complicated.

IMHO, the ideal is never to have Western missionaries leading churches in other countries, but to the extent possible, to train local pastors to do that work. Americans must be trained to speak the language (which they usually never fully master, because it is very difficult to learn a foreign language well as an adult), and they struggle with a lack of familiarity with the culture. Even to the extent that they do overcome these things, they are still foreigners to the people, which implies that it is an 'American religion'.

However, these criticisms are not to say that there should not be any Western missionaries. Clearly, there is a need to support our brothers and sisters in other countries, especially in areas where Christian education and seminary training is not as accessible. Those who have greater blessings should share. So I do support mission work in theory.

However, as to why more people don't do it ...

It can be very difficult and very hard on the family. It often means exposing your children to dangers and to disease. It means a lot of isolation and loneliness. You stand out wherever you go, and you never really fit in. You are away from your extended family, and your children will never get to know their grandparents very well. Your children are often targets of bullying and abuse because of their nationality, and if you have a handicapped child, there are no special education services. God help you or your spouse or child becomes seriously ill, because there may not be a competent hospital in the entire country.

So it sounds quite glamorous, but it is not. It can be rewarding, but it can be terrible. I grew up a MK, but it's not a life that I would want for my kids.

and a recent survey on church budgets calculated that less than one half of 1 cent for every hundred dollars spent by american churches go towards pioneer/frontier missions among the least-reached

Well, in our defense, our first obligation is to pay our own bills. A church has to pay for its building, it's electricity, it's pastor's salary, etc ... If it can't do that, it will cease to exist. Whatever is left over after that can be put to help other people. But it would be poor stewardship to pay money for foreign missions while starving one's own pastor.

IMHO, the ideal is never to have Western missionaries leading churches in other countries, but to the extent possible, to train local pastors to do that work.

AMEN TO THAT!





Now, a pastor's life is also hard. But seminary graduates are going into the pastorate all the same. Many Asian cities rival American cities in technology and infrastructure, many missionaries are not even rural or remote and many live in Europe and large Asian cities.

At least a 15% rate of going overseas is more reasonable than what we currently have. Is this a failure for seminaries to prepare, is it a wrong focus, or what?



P.s. I would love to hear of your MK experience.

-----Added 6/27/2009 at 11:28:41 EST-----

Originally Posted by Caroline

Well, in our defense, our first obligation is to pay our own bills. A church has to pay for its building, it's electricity, it's pastor's salary, etc ... If it can't do that, it will cease to exist. Whatever is left over after that can be put to help other people. But it would be poor stewardship to pay money for foreign missions while starving one's own pastor.

Over 3% of a budget hardly seems like a strain.

I agree that a pastor ought to be supported first.

I believe the approach outlined would be unproductive, at best. Most of the countries you have identified are muslim, hostile to Christianity, and to a large extent, the west. And many of them are not stupid. You start sending hundreds of newly minted 25 year old M.Divs and their wives that direction, and most of them are going to be able to figure out what is going on, and they will take action. Throwing bodies at the muslim world isn't going to solve the issue. The approach needs to be strategic.

On the other hand, there is a dire need for missionaries in the western world. Indeed, African Christians have had to treat the US and Canada as a mission field in recent years. And the EU and other westernized areas are in even worse shape.

So perhaps we ought to consider whether we should be bringing missionaries in, rather than sending them out. (You want to witness to Muslims? You don't have to go to Egypt or Jordan, you can go to Michigan or Texas. You want to preach to Mexicans? Go to Dalton, GA or Springdale, AR.)

So if a church wants to reach out to Laotians, or Kenyans, and use its existing buildings to do so, is their work any less valuable than someone who does the same thing 10,000 miles away?

Originally Posted by Edward

I believe the approach outlined would be unproductive, at best. Most of the countries you have identified are muslim, hostile to Christianity, and to a large extent, the west. And many of them are not stupid. You start sending hundreds of newly minted 25 year old M.Divs and their wives that direction, and most of them are going to be able to figure out what is going on, and they will take action. Throwing bodies at the muslim world isn't going to solve the issue. The approach needs to be strategic.

On the other hand, there is a dire need for missionaries in the western world. Indeed, African Christians have had to treat the US and Canada as a mission field in recent years. And the EU and other westernized areas are in even worse shape.

So perhaps we ought to consider whether we should be bringing missionaries in, rather than sending them out. (You want to witness to Muslims? You don't have to go to Egypt or Jordan, you can go to Michigan or Texas. You want to preach to Mexicans? Go to Dalton, GA or Springdale, AR.)

So if a church wants to reach out to Laotians, or Kenyans, and use its existing buildings to do so, is their work any less valuable than someone who does the same thing 10,000 miles away?

Edward,

What do you mean by bringing missionaries in rather than sending them out? Is this a serious thought?



A lost soul is a lost soul, but a lost soul in Atlanta Georgia starves when the bread of life is close at hand. Some overseas have NEVER even heard the Gospel once and some places still have not even a book of the Bible translated.

In this age of globalization there are Westerners travelling everywhere. For instance, Dubai has a large western population as does other Asian and many Muslim countries. We are already sending hundreds of missionaries to the Muslim world and many are meeting with fields that are white for the harvest, yet with few workers. In fact, there are thousands of missionaries already in muslim-majority countries.

Edward, are you really being serious in your assertions?

At least a 15% rate of going overseas is more reasonable than what we currently have. Is this a failure for seminaries to prepare, is it a wrong focus, or what?

My inclination would be that, while I think it would be good to increase the number of missionaries, if possible (not all countries are hostile to them, and some, especially African nations, are in dire need of them), I am concerned about quality as well as quantity.

I believe that a seminary grad should have to prove himself in ministry before being commissioned as a missionary, because there is so little oversight of missionaries that it really has to be someone responsible and reliable in a way that few even well-meaning people are.

Consider this scenario (which I find to be VERY common):

Steve Seminarygrad is in his mid-twenties and engaged to be married and believes he feels called of God to go to Thailand. He tells his fiancee that he will go over first for a year, get things settled, and then come back, they will marry, and he will bring her to join him.

So Steve, all enthusiastic, heads over to Thailand. He has to start learning Thai. He realizes he doesn't really like Thai food that much. The house he is in doesn't have air conditioning. He starts having some kind of digestive problems that continue to plague him, but he can't pin down the source. Maybe it's something he's eating. Maybe it's just the heat and stress. He's not sure. But he's enthusiastic, and he starts doing mission work. People are friendly, even responsive on some level, but he doesn't really have anyone to talk to. People follow him around, asking him for money and to help their spouse or adult son or daughter get a job in the USA. Some people are very friendly and want to practice their English on him. But he's not really accepted as one of them. He's a curiosity and a novelty among them, not a friend. Maybe over a period of years, he will learn the language and gain their trust enough to make some real friends, but right now, that's a goal that is out of reach.

Two months after he gets there, he wakes up one morning feeling a little blah and nauseous, and he decides not to go out doing ministry work that day. The next day he does go, but the day after that, he stays home again. He doesn't really think about it, but he is slipping into a lethargy brought on by the fact that there's no one around who knows or cares whether he goes to work or not. All of his supporters are thousands of miles away, and they send the same amount of money whether he works or just stays home watching Thai television. Gradually, his efforts at ministry start to drop off. He finds that he can go out once a month to visit an orphanage, take some pictures, send them to supporters, and no one knows the difference.

Eight months after he got there, he is really lonely and looking forward to going back home to see his family and be able to talk to someone. He thinks that things will be better once he gets married and brings his wife over. That's when he gets the letter from his fiancee breaking off the engagement. He has been gone too long, and she has thought things over and decided she doesn't want to get married and move to Thailand. Maybe she even met someone else.

It starts to occur to Steve that there are lots and lots of pretty girls right here in Thailand standing around on the streetcorners selling something he think might help him get over the loss of his fiancee. And nobody back home would ever know.

Now, I don't mean to insinuate anything about anyone here, but all of you pastors on this forum ask yourselves whether that's a situation where you would have stayed out of trouble as a young man in your twenties. There are some who do resist all temptation, but many who don't.

Now granted, not all situations are quite like that. Sometimes missionaries work in groups (which gives more accountibility), and sometimes they are married before they go. Even so, it's a tough situation, and loneliness is almost always a factor.

I think the only thing worse than no missionary at all is having missionaries who are there, but obviously lazy and immoral. That is a terrible example and terrible witness to the population that they are serving.

It is better, in my opinion, if missionaries are not young and new to ministry, but older and married. Even so, it's not easy, but that gives it a better chance.

Originally Posted by Caroline

My inclination would be that, while I think it would be good to increase the number of missionaries, if possible (not all countries are hostile to them, and some, especially African nations, are in dire need of them), I am concerned about quality as well as quantity.

I believe that a seminary grad should have to prove himself in ministry before being commissioned as a missionary, because there is so little oversight of missionaries that it really has to be someone responsible and reliable in a way that few even well-meaning people are.

Consider this scenario (which I find to be VERY common):

Steve Seminarygrad is in his mid-twenties and engaged to be married and believes he feels called of God to go to Thailand. He tells his fiancee that he will go over first for a year, get things settled, and then come back, they will marry, and he will bring her to join him.

So Steve, all enthusiastic, heads over to Thailand. He has to start learning Thai. He realizes he doesn't really like Thai food that much. The house he is in doesn't have air conditioning. He starts having some kind of digestive problems that continue to plague him, but he can't pin down the source. Maybe it's something he's eating. Maybe it's just the heat and stress. He's not sure. But he's enthusiastic, and he starts doing mission work. People are friendly, even responsive on some level, but he doesn't really have anyone to talk to. People follow him around, asking him for money and to help their spouse or adult son or daughter get a job in the USA. Some people are very friendly and want to practice their English on him. But he's not really accepted as one of them. He's a curiosity and a novelty among them, not a friend. Maybe over a period of years, he will learn the language and gain their trust enough to make some real friends, but right now, that's a goal that is out of reach.

Two months after he gets there, he wakes up one morning feeling a little blah and nauseous, and he decides not to go out doing ministry work that day. The next day he does go, but the day after that, he stays home again. He doesn't really think about it, but he is slipping into a lethargy brought on by the fact that there's no one around who knows or cares whether he goes to work or not. All of his supporters are thousands of miles away, and they send the same amount of money whether he works or just stays home watching Thai television. Gradually, his efforts at ministry start to drop off. He finds that he can go out once a month to visit an orphanage, take some pictures, send them to supporters, and no one knows the difference.

Eight months after he got there, he is really lonely and looking forward to going back home to see his family and be able to talk to someone. He thinks that things will be better once he gets married and brings his wife over. That's when he gets the letter from his fiancee breaking off the engagement. He has been gone too long, and she has thought things over and decided she doesn't want to get married and move to Thailand. Maybe she even met someone else.

It starts to occur to Steve that there are lots and lots of pretty girls right here in Thailand standing around on the streetcorners selling something he think might help him get over the loss of his fiancee. And nobody back home would ever know.

Now, I don't mean to insinuate anything about anyone here, but all of you pastors on this forum ask yourselves whether that's a situation where you would have stayed out of trouble as a young man in your twenties. There are some who do resist all temptation, but many who don't.

Now granted, not all situations are quite like that. Sometimes missionaries work in groups (which gives more accountibility), and sometimes they are married before they go. Even so, it's a tough situation, and loneliness is almost always a factor.

I think the only thing worse than no missionary at all is having missionaries who are there, but obviously lazy and immoral. That is a terrible example and terrible witness to the population that they are serving.

It is better, in my opinion, if missionaries are not young and new to ministry, but older and married. Even so, it's not easy, but that gives it a better chance.

If a missionary needs to prove himself in ministry before doing missionary work, should a US pastor also need to do the same? Yes or No, and why? How would this "proving" look different for each?

Most missionary agencies require some cross cultural training that helps them adjust. Stilll, however, attrition is about 5% per person per year (i.e. odds are that a married missionary couple at 5 years of service will have a 50% chance of leaving/have left the field). Pastoral rates of turnover are also very high.


Most missionaries I know work in some form of team or at least there is a level of accountability much greater than a pastor would have at a single-preacher church. Most missionaries I know also tend towards overwork rather than laziness and most have steller moral lives, though the stresses and family turmoil are also much higher.

-----Added 6/28/2009 at 12:59:29 EST-----

p.s. except for the bit about a missionary considering sleeping with prostitues, I would imagine that your scenario is, indeed, very common. I have known a few missionaries exhibiting those symptoms. Although lethargy, ennui and laziness in the US is generally easier and more common I would say.

Although, I just read, "Preventing Ministry Failure" by I-Forget, and he claims that 20% of pastors (US pastors I ould assume since it was an american survey) have been unfaithful to their wives. I would imagine the rates for missionaries couldn't be any more than that, and I would hope much less (though I still cannot believe the statistic of 20% myself).

P.s.s. I have been approached and propositioned twice and I can honestly say I never even tinkered with the thought. However, the US culture is generally much looser in sexual standards and so infidelity might be more common in the US compared with rates of use for overseas prostitutes, especially with fear of AIDS curbing the ardor of potential customers.

Originally Posted by tellville

So, what's your thoughts....instead of smugly sitting there and munching your popcorn?

If a missionary needs to prove himself in ministry before doing missionary work, should a US pastor also need to do the same? Yes or No, and why? How would this "proving" look different for each?

I'm suggesting that missionaries need to be 'proven' first because of the general lack of oversight in the field. If my pastor starts staying home playing solitaire on his computer instead of working (he doesn't, so don't anyone start writing letters), odds are that the people paying his salary would know very quickly. If one of our missionaries in Haiti gets a bit lazy, I don't know how we would ever find out.

Question ... and I don't mean to be paranoid here, but I feel that it has to be said ... how do you know that the missionaries work hard and lead stellar moral lives? Because they say they do?

Let me add here that I know that there are some who do work hard and lead good moral lives. I'm NOT saying that EVERY missionary is bad. And I also know that many who leave the field have done some good while they were there. Certainly, the turnover rate even for married missionaries is high, often because of marital stress or concerns about the welfare of the children, and that's ok that people leave when it is not a good thing for their family anymore. People can only do so much and they have to take their own family into consideration.

What I say comes of experience. I can't speak for everyone or every situation. But my husband was an MK in Mexico, and myself in South Korea/China/Mongolia. It's ok if you think I'm wrong, and perhaps I am a bit of a cynic. But sometimes you see the same problems over and over and over ... My husband and I have both known some missionaries who never even learned the local language and never did any discernable ministry, as far as we could tell. But this is not to discount the hardships either. My sister went to China as a missionary (and, as an MK herself, she was more prepared than most). She had been supposed to work at a school. When she arrived, her passport was confiscated (for 'safekeeping') and she was locked onto the school compound alone every night and weekend (again for 'safekeeping'). She became ill and ended up in the hospital where she was given a surgical procedure with no anesthesia. She returned to the USA after nine months.

The point of all my rambling is simply that it is a complex situation. There's a tendency to say, "We should send more missionaries! Start pushing seminary grads overseas!" But it's just more complicated than that. It's an admirable job, but it's not for everyone, and if there's not enough accountibility (which there usually is not), then you are asking for trouble. And it's a lot to ask of someone--psychologically and practically, it can be very challenging.

However, the US culture is generally much looser in sexual standards and so infidelity might be more common in the US compared with rates of use for overseas prostitutes, especially with fear of AIDS curbing the ardor of potential customers.

I'm sorry, but perhaps Muslim countries aside (I'm not sure, as I am not as familiar with them), this is not true. The USA is on the prudish side. Prostitution, etc, are HUGE problems in most Asian countries. I don't mean to be crude, but the town that I lived in South Korea had big life-size **** billboards, and there were advertisements featuring topless women on the subway.

In many cultures, there is a double standard ... 'good' women are generally expected to be 'pure', but men are expected to roam.

Wow, this is a good discussion and I have said many times that we do need to get are missionaries trained. First I want to address some of the practical reasons why we are not sending missionaries out from are trained seminaries as a whole. First reason is debt. We force our pastors this high level training, which they need to rightly divide the word of truth, and in the process that have gathered 30 to 60 thousands of dollars of debt or more. The biblical and historical practice before seminaries was for pastors or elders to provide such historical instruction. By our churches not supporting pastoral candidates financially while they attend seminary we are actually shooting ourselves in the foot by limiting what they can do outside of the U.S. because of that established debt. I can go on this subject being a seminary student, but I won’t,

Second reason I don’t think we do because of they type of training we do in the practical theology realm is poor. Were good in systematics and languages, which is good, but some of the practical stuff I have seen can just be bad.

Thirdly, the high number of seminary students with families I think is another factor which we can discus later.

Fourthly, we have delegated missionary training away from churches and seminaries to non-denominational para-church organizations, instead of the focus and support coming from are local church. Which I think has had a terrible impact in our missionaries theological readiness.

Fifth, we don’t teach at our local churches even how to do basic evangelism as a whole and instead we give people a track to do as they please.

Sixth, the church is not seen primarily as an organization or body of believers committed to the outreach and teaching of God truth to his people everywhere across the Globe. And instead is focused on meeting the wants of the unchurched as is clearly seen in the Purpose Driven Church as is reinforced by are market consumer driven society.

All six of these reasons are practical and society reasons why we don’t have more missionaries in seminary and more seminary students not in the missionary field. And am sure we can come up with more reasons.

What are your thoughts?

Originally Posted by Caroline

If a missionary needs to prove himself in ministry before doing missionary work, should a US pastor also need to do the same? Yes or No, and why? How would this "proving" look different for each?

I'm suggesting that missionaries need to be 'proven' first because of the general lack of oversight in the field. If my pastor starts staying home playing solitaire on his computer instead of working (he doesn't, so don't anyone start writing letters), odds are that the people paying his salary would know very quickly. If one of our missionaries in Haiti gets a bit lazy, I don't know how we would ever find out.

Question ... and I don't mean to be paranoid here, but I feel that it has to be said ... how do you know that the missionaries work hard and lead stellar moral lives? Because they say they do?

Let me add here that I know that there are some who do work hard and lead good moral lives. I'm NOT saying that EVERY missionary is bad. And I also know that many who leave the field have done some good while they were there. Certainly, the turnover rate even for married missionaries is high, often because of marital stress or concerns about the welfare of the children, and that's ok that people leave when it is not a good thing for their family anymore. People can only do so much and they have to take their own family into consideration.

What I say comes of experience. I can't speak for everyone or every situation. But my husband was an MK in Mexico, and myself in South Korea/China/Mongolia. It's ok if you think I'm wrong, and perhaps I am a bit of a cynic. But sometimes you see the same problems over and over and over ... My husband and I have both known some missionaries who never even learned the local language and never did any discernable ministry, as far as we could tell. But this is not to discount the hardships either. My sister went to China as a missionary (and, as an MK herself, she was more prepared than most). She had been supposed to work at a school. When she arrived, her passport was confiscated (for 'safekeeping') and she was locked onto the school compound alone every night and weekend (again for 'safekeeping'). She became ill and ended up in the hospital where she was given a surgical procedure with no anesthesia. She returned to the USA after nine months.

The point of all my rambling is simply that it is a complex situation. There's a tendency to say, "We should send more missionaries! Start pushing seminary grads overseas!" But it's just more complicated than that. It's an admirable job, but it's not for everyone, and if there's not enough accountibility (which there usually is not), then you are asking for trouble. And it's a lot to ask of someone--psychologically and practically, it can be very challenging.

I have personally witnessed the lives of many missionaries. Most, I would say, work harder than their American counterparts in ministry. Things take longer overseas and meetings take longer and many cultures are more relational such that a 3 hour lunch meeting is "work" when we would think that 10 minutes would be enough. Most male missionaries trend towards overwork in my experience.

Also, local languages are very hard to learn. Many immigrants to the US take YEARS to learn Enlglish. Most missionaries need to be conversant within a year. Also, many are working in languages that do not have grammars and lexicons already made (they themselves making the lexicons). I am pretty good in the national language, but am struggling with learning my tribal language.



I really don't think the situation is that complicated. Many troubles abound in US ministry, but we continue to graduate young and fallible grads. And, the general expectation that goes unchallenged is that these graduates are graduating to serve in the US.

We could recruit and mobilize better, we could prepare grads better and mentor and train them better for overseas service IF missions was a priority instead of just an occasionally-thought-about option pursued by a very, very small percentage of the grads and not nurtured by seminaries themselves.

P.s. bad stories do abound. And extra cross-cultural training does need to happen for missionaries. Also, mentoring and accountability needs to be there. But the worst solution to solve these problems is not to focus on them less because they are complicated, but to focus on them more and prioritize these areas of need more.


Seminaries are to prepare people for ministry, but it is assumed that this is US ministry and missions programs at most seminaries are pathetically weak. I want to challenge that.

-----Added 6/28/2009 at 01:40:12 EST-----

Originally Posted by Caroline

If a missionary needs to prove himself in ministry before doing missionary work, should a US pastor also need to do the same? Yes or No, and why? How would this "proving" look different for each?

I'm suggesting that missionaries need to be 'proven' first because of the general lack of oversight in the field. If my pastor starts staying home playing solitaire on his computer instead of working (he doesn't, so don't anyone start writing letters), odds are that the people paying his salary would know very quickly. If one of our missionaries in Haiti gets a bit lazy, I don't know how we would ever find out.

Question ... and I don't mean to be paranoid here, but I feel that it has to be said ... how do you know that the missionaries work hard and lead stellar moral lives? Because they say they do?

Let me add here that I know that there are some who do work hard and lead good moral lives. I'm NOT saying that EVERY missionary is bad. And I also know that many who leave the field have done some good while they were there. Certainly, the turnover rate even for married missionaries is high, often because of marital stress or concerns about the welfare of the children, and that's ok that people leave when it is not a good thing for their family anymore. People can only do so much and they have to take their own family into consideration.

What I say comes of experience. I can't speak for everyone or every situation. But my husband was an MK in Mexico, and myself in South Korea/China/Mongolia. It's ok if you think I'm wrong, and perhaps I am a bit of a cynic. But sometimes you see the same problems over and over and over ... My husband and I have both known some missionaries who never even learned the local language and never did any discernable ministry, as far as we could tell. But this is not to discount the hardships either. My sister went to China as a missionary (and, as an MK herself, she was more prepared than most). She had been supposed to work at a school. When she arrived, her passport was confiscated (for 'safekeeping') and she was locked onto the school compound alone every night and weekend (again for 'safekeeping'). She became ill and ended up in the hospital where she was given a surgical procedure with no anesthesia. She returned to the USA after nine months.

The point of all my rambling is simply that it is a complex situation. There's a tendency to say, "We should send more missionaries! Start pushing seminary grads overseas!" But it's just more complicated than that. It's an admirable job, but it's not for everyone, and if there's not enough accountibility (which there usually is not), then you are asking for trouble. And it's a lot to ask of someone--psychologically and practically, it can be very challenging.

However, the US culture is generally much looser in sexual standards and so infidelity might be more common in the US compared with rates of use for overseas prostitutes, especially with fear of AIDS curbing the ardor of potential customers.

I'm sorry, but perhaps Muslim countries aside (I'm not sure, as I am not as familiar with them), this is not true. The USA is on the prudish side. Prostitution, etc, are HUGE problems in most Asian countries. I don't mean to be crude, but the town that I lived in South Korea had big life-size **** billboards, and there were advertisements featuring topless women on the subway.

In many cultures, there is a double standard ... 'good' women are generally expected to be 'pure', but men are expected to roam.

Muslims make up THE largest religion, and the largest fields right now.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Edward,

What do you mean by bringing missionaries in rather than sending them out? Is this a serious thought?

Serious, but generally impractical. Korea is really about the only country that could supply a significant number of reformed missionaries. And the Koreans are probably the group least in need.

But yes, there are many illegals here from Mexico and central America who don't speak much English. And some missionaries from the Yucatan could find a large mission field to work. Chinese, Indians (south Asia), Kenyans, Laotians - all need to be reached.

A lost soul is a lost soul, but a lost soul in Atlanta Georgia starves when the bread of life is close at hand. Some overseas have NEVER even heard the Gospel once and some places still have not even a book of the Bible translated.

The second largest ethnic group at my daughter's school is Chinese. One parent may speak excellent English and be employed in a high -tech job. The other parent may or may not speak English. And the grandparents who are caring for the kids certainly don't. Do you really think they can wander into any church in town and get 'the bread of life'? Even the local Chinese Baptist church might not be the solution, given the many Chinese dialects.

In this age of globalization there are Westerners travelling everywhere. For instance, Dubai has a large western population as does other Asian and many Muslim countries. We are already sending hundreds of missionaries to the Muslim world and many are meeting with fields that are white for the harvest, yet with few workers. In fact, there are thousands of missionaries already in muslim-majority countries.

And the few that I have known haven't been earnest young seminary grads. They've been businessmen, or educators, or medical personnel. Are you suggesting that newly minted seminary grads can go waltzing into Saudi, or Pakistan to start knocking on doors and planting churches?

Edward, are you really being serious in your assertions?

Yes. Have you ever been to Europe (or San Francisco, for that matter?)
Here's some reading for you:

Britain is no longer a Christian nation, claims Church of England Bishop
Britain is no longer a Christian nation, claims Church of England Bishop - Telegraph

Originally Posted by Grimmson

Wow, this is a good discussion and I have said many times that we do need to get are missionaries trained. First I want to address some of the practical reasons why we are not sending missionaries out from are trained seminaries as a whole. First reason is debt. We force our pastors this high level training, which they need to rightly divide the word of truth, and in the process that have gathered 30 to 60 thousands of dollars of debt or more. The biblical and historical practice before seminaries was for pastors or elders to provide such historical instruction. By our churches not supporting pastoral candidates financially while they attend seminary we are actually shooting ourselves in the foot by limiting what they can do outside of the U.S. because of that established debt. I can go on this subject being a seminary student, but I won’t,

Second reason I don’t think we do because of they type of training we do in the practical theology realm is poor. Were good in systematics and languages, which is good, but some of the practical stuff I have seen can just be bad.

Thirdly, the high number of seminary students with families I think is another factor which we can discus later.

Fourthly, we have delegated missionary training away from churches and seminaries to non-denominational para-church organizations, instead of the focus and support coming from are local church. Which I think has had a terrible impact in our missionaries theological readiness.

Fifth, we don’t teach at our local churches even how to do basic evangelism as a whole and instead we give people a track to do as they please.

Sixth, the church is not seen primarily as an organization or body of believers committed to the outreach and teaching of God truth to his people everywhere across the Globe. And instead is focused on meeting the wants of the unchurched as is clearly seen in the Purpose Driven Church as is reinforced by are market consumer driven society.

All six of these reasons are practical and society reasons why we don’t have more missionaries in seminary and more seminary students not in the missionary field. And am sure we can come up with more reasons.

What are your thoughts?

Amen to your points.

Amen to points one and two.

About families, they are not that big of a hindrance to most mission fields. Families actually help in many places by lending missionaries an aire (sp?) of credibility and trustworthiness.

About your 4th point: I agree a little and disagree a little. There needs to be VERY CLOSE local church invovlement, but most local churches have NO ONE that has had considerable overseas experience and they are simply not qualified to train missionaries to a quality level. There is nothing wrong with former missionaries forming a training group or org and helping the local churches to send their people. My local church supports me much, but they would fail to process my visas and they ould fail to teach me how to learn linguistics or deal with culture shock.

Amen to five and six.

-----Added 6/28/2009 at 01:50:58 EST-----

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Edward,

What do you mean by bringing missionaries in rather than sending them out? Is this a serious thought?

Serious, but generally impractical. Korea is really about the only country that could supply a significant number of reformed missionaries. And the Koreans are probably the group least in need.

But yes, there are many illegals here from Mexico and central America who don't speak much English. And some missionaries from the Yucatan could find a large mission field to work. Chinese, Indians (south Asia), Kenyans, Laotians - all need to be reached.

A lost soul is a lost soul, but a lost soul in Atlanta Georgia starves when the bread of life is close at hand. Some overseas have NEVER even heard the Gospel once and some places still have not even a book of the Bible translated.

The second largest ethnic group at my daughter's school is Chinese. One parent may speak excellent English and be employed in a high -tech job. The other parent may or may not speak English. And the grandparents who are caring for the kids certainly don't. Do you really think they can wander into any church in town and get 'the bread of life'? Even the local Chinese Baptist church might not be the solution, given the many Chinese dialects.

In this age of globalization there are Westerners travelling everywhere. For instance, Dubai has a large western population as does other Asian and many Muslim countries. We are already sending hundreds of missionaries to the Muslim world and many are meeting with fields that are white for the harvest, yet with few workers. In fact, there are thousands of missionaries already in muslim-majority countries.

And the few that I have known haven't been earnest young seminary grads. They've been businessmen, or educators, or medical personnel. Are you suggesting that newly minted seminary grads can go waltzing into Saudi, or Pakistan to start knocking on doors and planting churches?

Edward, are you really being serious in your assertions?

Yes. Have you ever been to Europe (or San Francisco, for that matter?)
Here's some reading for you:

Britain is no longer a Christian nation, claims Church of England Bishop
Britain is no longer a Christian nation, claims Church of England Bishop - Telegraph

Edward, when I say "mission field" I am including Britain and europe.

Also, yes, many businessman are going to Asian cities to do business. With an increase of travel by Westerners, it is that much easier for missionaries also to go.

And yes, if a member of an unreached group comes to the US, then we should reach them here. But also, there is still a need for many many to go overseas also.

I don;t kno how to respond to your post because I cannot picture what you are advocating. I don't quite get your arguments.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Edward, when I say "mission field" I am including Britain and europe.

OK, from your first and third paragraphs, you seemed to be lumping all of the western world together.

Also, yes, many businessman are going to Asian cities to do business. With an increase of travel by Westerners, it is that much easier for missionaries also to go.

I just know how our church deals with closed and semi-closed countries. Perhaps we are wasting efforts, and a more direct approach might work.

And yes, if a member of an unreached group comes to the US, then we should reach them here. But also, there is still a need for many many to go overseas also.

And that brings us back to the question as to whether folks that look and sound like them can best reach them.

I don;t kno how to respond to your post because I cannot picture what you are advocating. I don't quite get your arguments.

1. Starting with your basic point, sending a third, or a sixth, of new seminary grads to foreign mission fields, and specifically Muslim ones, is a recipe for disaster.

2. The west, including the US, needs to be recognized as a multicultural morass in need of missionaries.

I can understand where you’re coming from with my third reason; however I just think it is a factor many go out to some degree and not necessarily a good excuse. I can come up with reasons why a family can be a hindrance being a single man on the mission field such as providing for their physical needs or health issues, but I can also see where they are an asset.

In my four reason and point, do not get me wrong I so not have anything personally against para-church organizations, but there does need to be more church involvement in the process of sending out missionaries and that is the more biblical model, we cannot deny that with Paul being sent forth from Antioch. In fact this is where are denominations need to stand up and do what there suppose to do as a network of churches; especially the Baptist associations that claim to exist to assist in the training of pastors and missionaries to go out to the field. Instead what I see more from Baptist is a focus in their energy and time to moral and political issues, versus the Gospel and the full council of God. I do not have an issue with a church sending someone to a para church organization, but in my experience theologically those organizations are not completely theologically sound in many of the much needed particulars of the Christian faith, which I can go in detail if you like. But needless to say most churches need to be more involved sending people out for missionary work. And sending teens/kids to a camp for missions really does not cut it as giving people evangelism training (personal indictment against someone/group unnamed).

Originally Posted by Grimmson

I can understand where you’re coming from with my third reason; however I just think it is a factor many go out to some degree and not necessarily a good excuse. I can come up with reasons why a family can be a hindrance being a single man on the mission field such as providing for their physical needs or health issues, but I can also see where they are an asset.

In my four reason and point, do not get me wrong I so not have anything personally against para-church organizations, but there does need to be more church involvement in the process of sending out missionaries and that is the more biblical model, we cannot deny that with Paul being sent forth from Antioch. In fact this is where are denominations need to stand up and do what there suppose to do as a network of churches; especially the Baptist associations that claim to exist to assist in the training of pastors and missionaries to go out to the field. Instead what I see more from Baptist is a focus in their energy and time to moral and political issues, versus the Gospel and the full council of God. I do not have an issue with a church sending someone to a para church organization, but in my experience theologically those organizations are not completely theologically sound in many of the much needed particulars of the Christian faith, which I can go in detail if you like. But needless to say most churches need to be more involved sending people out for missionary work. And sending teens/kids to a camp for missions really does not cut it as giving people evangelism training (personal indictment against someone/group unnamed).

If you want to, let's start a discussion of HOW to send missionaries. But for the record, most mission agencies that I know of honor the local church. A local church can send a missionary but do so through a mission org and the local church is still doing the sending. Whatever problems you have against mission orgs, to be consistent, you also need to have against seminaries and Bible schools.

The Biblical model is this: Antioch "released" Paul to serve on his "mission field" and while on the field, Paul and his band made semi-autonomous decisions that did not first pass through Antioch (Paul recruited other missionaries, they decided where to go, etc, and how to work with without first consulting Antioch. I.e. it was a field-based approach which very much looks like the missions teams that evangelical orgs are fielding today.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Since the Great Commission was given to the apostles to go and make disciples of all nations, and given that the need for a gospel witness is SO much higher in other countries, shouldn't we expect that a great majority of our seminary graduates will be sent out overseas as missionaries as opposed to serving in churches in the Western world?

Your premise seems to be that the leaders of our seminaries have got it all wrong, no?

AMR

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Since the Great Commission was given to the apostles to go and make disciples of all nations, and given that the need for a gospel witness is SO much higher in other countries, shouldn't we expect that a great majority of our seminary graduates will be sent out overseas as missionaries as opposed to serving in churches in the Western world?

Your premise seems to be that the leaders of our seminaries have got it all wrong, no?

AMR

No. They are doing many good things. But they keep preparing to feed the most well-fed instead of focusing on the most-hungry. They are doing good things, but are not allocating resources in proportion to where the needs lie. If most of the needs lie outside the US and seminary is primarily geared towards US service, then this does not seem like good strategy. Many, many seminaries and bible schools are very weak in missions preparation.

I didn’t say these organizations did not honor the local church. I think they do, but needless to my fault more with the local churches not doing their responsibility. And honestly I do have issues with are seminaries, but I see their practical need just like I do with the missionary organizations.

Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John to assist them. Acts 13:1-4

I do see the biblical model as being more then a release but a sending forth. And in the end of chapter 14 they returned to give testimony of what they did to Antioch. Paul and Barnabas as we see established more then just churches, but also ruling elders in these churches, which should be done in my option by theologically trained people; which Paul was. Training they we typically give to people these days in seminaries, even though I think more needs to be done by the local church. And I do think I am being consistent here, but I also am practical and see the reality of the world we are in.

In regards to Edward’s quote:
“1. Starting with your basic point, sending a third, or a sixth, of new seminary grads to foreign mission fields, and specifically Muslim ones, is a recipe for disaster.”
The Muslim people groups of the world need to hear Christ and him crucified. I don’t care who it is from as long as it is an orthodoxy is being taught and proclaimed. Multi-culturalism is not the issue. We will always be a odds against the culture. Now are there things we shouldn’t do, of course. Like we should not be giving then King James Bibles, that just dumb. Also another dumb thing is making them sing in English are hymns. We are not neglecting certain cultural references, but how can they hear if one is not sent? We can go and we should go because we are Calvinists and we believe that God has people everywhere in this world and that includes the Muslims. I recognize with them as a people group that it takes work. Perhaps 3 to 5 years of work proclaiming Christ and preparing a defense; which implies that the ground work needs to be laid now so that more can come to faith through their own people. It is not a recipe for disaster if these young preachers are trained properly to reach them and who knows the result may initially be the shedding of blood on our own part; which is one of the best testimonies we can give to Christ and to the people of those areas; for why fear the sword when we have such a great a mighty king that has the sovereignty to save if he so desires by the working of His Spirit.

Originally Posted by Grimmson

I didn’t say these organizations did not honor the local church. I think they do, but needless to my fault more with the local churches not doing their responsibility. And honestly I do have issues with are seminaries, but I see their practical need just like I do with the missionary organizations.

Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John to assist them. Acts 13:1-4

I do see the biblical model as being more then a release but a sending forth. And in the end of chapter 14 they returned to give testimony of what they did to Antioch. Paul and Barnabas as we see established more then just churches, but also ruling elders in these churches, which should be done in my option by theologically trained people; which Paul was. Training they we typically give to people these days in seminaries, even though I think more needs to be done by the local church. And I do think I am being consistent here, but I also am practical and see the reality of the world we are in.

In regards to Edward’s quote:
“1. Starting with your basic point, sending a third, or a sixth, of new seminary grads to foreign mission fields, and specifically Muslim ones, is a recipe for disaster.”
The Muslim people groups of the world need to hear Christ and him crucified. I don’t care who it is from as long as it is an orthodoxy is being taught and proclaimed. Multi-culturalism is not the issue. We will always be a odds against the culture. Now are there things we shouldn’t do, of course. Like we should not be giving then King James Bibles, that just dumb. Also another dumb thing is making them sing in English are hymns. We are not neglecting certain cultural references, but how can they hear if one is not sent? We can go and we should go because we are Calvinists and we believe that God has people everywhere in this world and that includes the Muslims. I recognize with them as a people group that it takes work. Perhaps 3 to 5 years of work proclaiming Christ and preparing a defense; which implies that the ground work needs to be laid now so that more can come to faith through their own people. It is not a recipe for disaster if these young preachers are trained properly to reach them and who knows the result may initially be the shedding of blood on our own part; which is one of the best testimonies we can give to Christ and to the people of those areas; for why fear the sword when we have such a great a mighty king that has the sovereignty to save if he so desires by the working of His Spirit.

I think we are agreed.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Since the Great Commission was given to the apostles to go and make disciples of all nations, and given that the need for a gospel witness is SO much higher in other countries, shouldn't we expect that a great majority of our seminary graduates will be sent out overseas as missionaries as opposed to serving in churches in the Western world?

Your premise seems to be that the leaders of our seminaries have got it all wrong, no?

AMR

No. They are doing many good things. But they keep preparing to feed the most well-fed instead of focusing on the most-hungry. They are doing good things, but are not allocating resources in proportion to where the needs lie. If most of the needs lie outside the US and seminary is primarily geared towards US service, then this does not seem like good strategy. Many, many seminaries and bible schools are very weak in missions preparation.

Seems to me your answer is actually "yes" given the statement above.

I take issue with the "well-fed vs. most-hungry" distinction you are trying to draw, for it seems to imply that the needs of the many souls outweighs the needs of the one soul, yet I find no such distinction drawn in Scripture, which clearly attests to the value of each and every soul. You see, it might be that one elect person in the suburbs of Detroit or Los Angeles that hears the Good News from these freshly minted seminarians, and is filled with the Spirit for missions work and goes on to do great things for the glory of God.

Lest you misunderstand my motives, let me state that when and if my ill wife is called home before I am, I fully intend to sell all that I own and spend my few remaining years in a missions capacity, fully funded by my savings. So, yes, I believe in missions work and have the greatest respect for those that are doing this. My only "beef" if you will, is with anyone who believes that the field of their calling is somehow being overlooked by so many Godly men in seminary leadership positions or, in this specific instance, that somehow God is not calling enough missionaries. Yet perhaps your opening post is one link in the ordained chain of events that will change all of this. I can grant that. But do you at least see my other view?

AMR

What a great topic and a good discussion so far.

OK, first if I may humbly (and I mean that) just give some context for my comments and opinions: I've been living in the bush in South Africa for 5 years, I'm accountable to my church in the UK and I'm not associated with a para, I have complete autonomy (within the bounds of accountability). I must be at least listening to God right sometimes because using a fraction of my time for leadership God is training, equipping, growing and using over a hundred local churches, and my Zulu is terrible. All His work of course; I see myself as one of His slaves on location to do His bidding when He calls. The rest of my time I try to uplift the community in human ways.

OK then, I don't know where to start on this subject. My route here was not typical and I don't know a lot about seminaries or mission organisations, but I have a strong feeling that a person should be somewhat matured before they undertake a serious mission in a strange culture and also a strong feeling that a seminary or any kind of training, is going to produce learning rather than maturation. God takes His own time with us and if He wants to take twenty years to mature someone sufficiently for this work, then you can't make it happen quicker by going to seminary.

I would want to see God's call being properly identified and false positives identified. If it's God's will, nothing you can do will stop it and if it's not God's will then nothing will save it. The elders in this process need to be listening to God and sensitive to the movements of the Spirit. Here's a way to discern a true call: if you call someone's bluff and say, "We will support you but not financially; we want you to prove your commitment and understanding of your call by getting a job and saving $20,000 towards your mission even if it takes you 5 years; come back when you've done that and we can really talk." This will weed out people who see Christian work as a career or are just too lazy to get a proper job and skills (there are people like that).

My experience was that I wanted to come out 4 years before I did, but I knew I didn't have enough skills and it never even occurred to me to get funding from elsewhere. So I got a proper job, gained a load of very useful skills in business and project management and then sold my house for the capital. Looking back, I think in that kind of situation, commitment is clear and God's call is highly likely. If, after 4 years, my enthusiasm was all but dead and hadn't produced preparatory fruit that would have been a strong sign that it wasn't a call from God at all. We want the right people to go out, not just lots of people. Ideally lots of right people!

Once someone's call has been identified, they need to go for a short term (3 months, say) while being mentored by an experienced missionary. We should train our experienced and knowledgeable missionaries in mentoring to be sure they get it right. In this way we should transfer knowledge from experience from one godly man to another.

If I were to mentor someone, from what I've learned so far, I would emphasise, "Assume you know nothing other than the gospel. Don't assume you know what the community needs or what the churches need. Assuming there are already some Christians in the place, get to know the most godly person locally and listen to God and him. Then work through local people. Don't have the arrogance to think that you could speak to a crowd of people better than your local partners. Be attentive to the movement of the Spirit, but don't think you have to do something if the Spirit isn't moving; do something else useful instead but always keep attentive for when the time comes. If God has His way then it will be clear. The work doesn't depend on you; God could achieve the work in any number of ways; He's using the work to bless you and the gaps to humble you."

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

Your premise seems to be that the leaders of our seminaries have got it all wrong, no?

AMR

No. They are doing many good things. But they keep preparing to feed the most well-fed instead of focusing on the most-hungry. They are doing good things, but are not allocating resources in proportion to where the needs lie. If most of the needs lie outside the US and seminary is primarily geared towards US service, then this does not seem like good strategy. Many, many seminaries and bible schools are very weak in missions preparation.

Seems to me your answer is actually "yes" given the statement above.

I take issue with the "well-fed vs. most-hungry" distinction you are trying to draw, for it seems to imply that the needs of the many souls outweighs the needs of the one soul, yet I find no such distinction drawn in Scripture, which clearly attests to the value of each and every soul. You see, it might be that one elect person in the suburbs of Detroit or Los Angeles that hears the Good News from these freshly minted seminarians, and is filled with the Spirit for missions work and goes on to do great things for the glory of God.

Lest you misunderstand my motives, let me state that when and if my ill wife is called home before I am, I fully intend to sell all that I own and spend my few remaining years in a missions capacity, fully funded by my savings. So, yes, I believe in missions work and have the greatest respect for those that are doing this. My only "beef" if you will, is with anyone who believes that the field of their calling is somehow being overlooked by so many Godly men in seminary leadership positions or, in this specific instance, that somehow God is not calling enough missionaries. Yet perhaps your opening post is one link in the ordained chain of events that will change all of this. I can grant that. But do you at least see my other view?

AMR

I believe in vigorous secondary causes.


I also believe that there IS a priority of evangelism.

In Romans 15 Paul moved on. You seem to be saying that there isn't a good theological reason for moving on once churches are planted. I think I can prove my case from Scripture that frontier peoples and the unreached ethne have higher priority. We can discuss this further if you would like.

-----Added 6/28/2009 at 09:01:05 EST-----

Originally Posted by dr_parsley

What a great topic and a good discussion so far.

OK, first if I may humbly (and I mean that) just give some context for my comments and opinions: I've been living in the bush in South Africa for 5 years, I'm accountable to my church in the UK and I'm not associated with a para, I have complete autonomy (within the bounds of accountability). I must be at least listening to God right sometimes because using a fraction of my time for leadership God is training, equipping, growing and using over a hundred local churches, and my Zulu is terrible. All His work of course; I see myself as one of His slaves on location to do His bidding when He calls. The rest of my time I try to uplift the community in human ways.

OK then, I don't know where to start on this subject. My route here was not typical and I don't know a lot about seminaries or mission organisations, but I have a strong feeling that a person should be somewhat matured before they undertake a serious mission in a strange culture and also a strong feeling that a seminary or any kind of training, is going to produce learning rather than maturation. God takes His own time with us and if He wants to take twenty years to mature someone sufficiently for this work, then you can't make it happen quicker by going to seminary.

I would want to see God's call being properly identified and false positives identified. If it's God's will, nothing you can do will stop it and if it's not God's will then nothing will save it. The elders in this process need to be listening to God and sensitive to the movements of the Spirit. Here's a way to discern a true call: if you call someone's bluff and say, "We will support you but not financially; we want you to prove your commitment and understanding of your call by getting a job and saving $20,000 towards your mission even if it takes you 5 years; come back when you've done that and we can really talk." This will weed out people who see Christian work as a career or are just too lazy to get a proper job and skills (there are people like that).

My experience was that I wanted to come out 4 years before I did, but I knew I didn't have enough skills and it never even occurred to me to get funding from elsewhere. So I got a proper job, gained a load of very useful skills in business and project management and then sold my house for the capital. Looking back, I think in that kind of situation, commitment is clear and God's call is highly likely. If, after 4 years, my enthusiasm was all but dead and hadn't produced preparatory fruit that would have been a strong sign that it wasn't a call from God at all. We want the right people to go out, not just lots of people. Ideally lots of right people!

Once someone's call has been identified, they need to go for a short term (3 months, say) while being mentored by an experienced missionary. We should train our experienced and knowledgeable missionaries in mentoring to be sure they get it right. In this way we should transfer knowledge from experience from one godly man to another.

If I were to mentor someone, from what I've learned so far, I would emphasise, "Assume you know nothing other than the gospel. Don't assume you know what the community needs or what the churches need. Assuming there are already some Christians in the place, get to know the most godly person locally and listen to God and him. Then work through local people. Don't have the arrogance to think that you could speak to a crowd of people better than your local partners. Be attentive to the movement of the Spirit, but don't think you have to do something if the Spirit isn't moving; do something else useful instead but always keep attentive for when the time comes. If God has His way then it will be clear. The work doesn't depend on you; God could achieve the work in any number of ways; He's using the work to bless you and the gaps to humble you."

I think I agree with your main points, i.e., that a missionary must be mature. However, with proper mentoring and guidance, even "newbies" can take roles on the mission field.

You appear to be totally on your own and I don't think this is healthy or that any except the most mature can hack this. You must be one of those very rare individuals that can succeed under those situations. However, I am not in favor of making over-strict rules for those who would want to serve. Living in Tokyo in an urban apartment might not be as trying as living in the bush. There are many opportunities to serve and there are many Asian and Urban scenarios that ould even be a fit for the physically weak.

Also, you are in a country that is open to missionaries and you CAN be an independant. Other places require other expertises, such as arranging visas, etc, or require working with a group that has contact persons in the right places so that you can gain entry into the country through religious or work visas. It is much harder to "go it alone" under those circumstances...and I am not sure going it alone would be healthy in any case.

You are 100% right in your thoughts on seminary. I have long thought that it would be better for a missionary to seek a solid practical trade and work with his hands a awhile before going, rather than graduating seminary as a test of worth. If you can survive on your own, work hard, endure hardship, then these might be better indicators for usccess than a degree; which is hy most missionary orgs do not require seminary training though many churches do.


I also agree that one's calling must be positively identified, and that clearly so. But what is a missionary call except a strong desire according to the Scripture and confirmed by the larger body of Christ? I see no difference in the need for pastors; we must confirm the calling of both pastors and missionaries. I don't see hy we need to put extra needless tests to this calling for one class but not the other.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by tellville

So, what's your thoughts....instead of smugly sitting there and munching your popcorn?

I've wanted to comment on the last few threads, but I have been really busy the last little while! And given that my seminary has basically just axed our mission program (which thankfully I was able to complete before it met the way of the dodo) I have a few things to say on the topic!

Pergamum,
I disagree with a central premise: "Many of those who are not Christians are those who have already rejected the gospel."

I think that quite a few people who claim to be Christians don't really understand the gospel so how can we say that the majority of non Christians know the gospel but have just rejected it.

Until we really get it down here with people next door, I do not think we should spend that much time worrying about people around the world.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Pergamum,
I disagree with a central premise: "Many of those who are not Christians are those who have already rejected the gospel."

I think that quite a few people who claim to be Christians don't really understand the gospel so how can we say that the majority of non Christians know the gospel but have just rejected it.

Until we really get it down here with people next door, I do not think we should spend that much time worrying about people around the world.

CT

Where are you pulling my quote from? I don't remember saying that and, if I did, I need to revise this.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Pergamum,
I disagree with a central premise: "Many of those who are not Christians are those who have already rejected the gospel."

I think that quite a few people who claim to be Christians don't really understand the gospel so how can we say that the majority of non Christians know the gospel but have just rejected it.

Until we really get it down here with people next door, I do not think we should spend that much time worrying about people around the world.

CT

Where are you pulling my quote from? I don't remember saying that and, if I did, I need to revise this.

The second line of the opening post.

CT

Ah, yes,

Those in the West, in America, are not Christians almost always because they do not want what is offered.

I have yet to meet someone who had no access to a bible in the USA. If someone were curious and wanted to seek, they could find easily here.

I would rather minister to the truly starving instead of spiritual anorexics who refuse to eat when the bread of life is within arm's reach.


So yes, I stand by that quote. When speaking of the USA those that are not Christians are mostly those who have and are rejecting the Gospel due to their outright rejection, their indiffference, their willing ignorance despite mountains of resources, or their lack of prioritization. If they rejectdue to ignorance then they are willfully ignorant and are shutting their ears to the Gospel.

Of course, some children this might not apply to if they are young and are in god-hating homes.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Ah, yes,

Those in the West, in America, are not Christians almost always because they do not want what is offered.

I have yet to meet someone who had no access to a bible in the USA. If someone were curious and wanted to seek, they could find easily here.

Do you think that there is a geographical aspect to God's decree in that there are some countries that God has limited those whom He will elect from within?

AMR

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Ah, yes,

Those in the West, in America, are not Christians almost always because they do not want what is offered.

I have yet to meet someone who had no access to a bible in the USA. If someone were curious and wanted to seek, they could find easily here.

Do you think that there is a geographical aspect to God's decree in that there are some countries that God has limited those whom He will elect from within?

AMR

I don't understand your question.

I think God is calling some from every tongue, tribe and nation.

I think, therefore, part of Christian stewardship is the allocation of our resources in such a way that all tribes, tongues and nations therefore have a witness. This means that if one area has 80-90% of the resources while other places are totally without, that we should focus more greatly on the darkest areas. Our present system of theological education does not stress this largely and our "food" therefore goes to feed the already well-fed.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Those in the West, in America, are not Christians almost always because they do not want what is offered.

I have yet to meet someone who had no access to a bible in the USA. If someone were curious and wanted to seek, they could find easily here.

I would rather minister to the truly starving instead of spiritual anorexics who refuse to eat when the bread of life is within arm's reach.

“The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; [There is] none who does good, No, not one.”- Psalms 14:3-4 (NJKV)

“Every one of them has turned aside; They have together become corrupt; [There is] none who does good, No, not one.”-Psalms 53:3 (NKJV)

“Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one [is] good but One, [that is], God.”- Luke 18:18-19 (NKJV)

I am surprised to some degree Pergamum’s statement, because despite the fact many non-Christians have access to the Bible they of course they will not come to God in faith. For it is man’s nature not to come to God because we are corrupt beings that are incapable of being good and run after the true. No one outside of God’s divine special grace has the ability to understand what God wants.

I would not say we live in a “spiritual anorexics who refuse to eat when the bread of life is within arm's reach”, but are instead are starving because they do not know who the bread of life is.

“For ‘whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.’ How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "LORD, who has believed our report?" So then faith [comes] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans 10:13-17 (NKJV)

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

I think that quite a few people who claim to be Christians don't really understand the gospel so how can we say that the majority of non Christians know the gospel but have just rejected it.

Until we really get it down here with people next door, I do not think we should spend that much time worrying about people around the world.

To some degree I agree with Christian Trader here. Most people in are pews do not understand the Gospel, because of a lack of training within our Churches. It is true that we have a ton of resources, but most people do not know what those resources are and have this dumb down view of scripture, instead of the full council being taught. Most people do not know what God’s ordained means of proclaiming the Gospel and look at it as their pastor’s or elder’s job instead of it being their own. Their not being taught this and that the fault of our teachers and the fault of their teachers as well.

How do we expect non-christians to understand the gospel if Christians do not. What they many times get is a false Christ and a false Gospel thinking that it is the real thing from real Christians, however those that may be real on are their duff doing nothing. We have plenty of people in need here and I have personally meet many of the unchurched who have never heard the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ; some of which that grew up in church and was primarily taught moralism.

We forget that faith comes by hearing, and hearing what? The word of God. By just expecting people to open up a Bible to find out about God’s grace is just dumb and I would say you do not understand the depravity of man and God’s ordained means for receiving the Gospel by faith. We must preach Christ where ever we are and that includes the United States of American; we preach in season and out, regardless of where we are at. And to do so with wisdom and patience the those who do not believe and those young in the faith. Are pastors have neglected their flock and their duty to feed and protect them, so the outcome is a skinny starved people. Men are like sheep, we do not always know what we need; therefore we need a leader to guide us and to teach us. Therefore if are leaders are truly that, leaders, then we will not always get what we want, but instead get what we need.

I do not agree with ChristianTrader’s last sentence. We are the church and it is our duty to carry out the message of Christ to the ends of the world to the end of the age. Yes we should prepare people for next door, but at the same time be minded and mature enough to look at those that need Christ outside of our political borders. Both must be done and not be neglected. Not all men are called to missions, but the church is called to send out missionaries. Therefore as we teach and train our own, we send out the more mature in the faith to do the duty God has graciously given to us for his glory alone.

I do not care who you all much rather minster to, I want Christ and him crucified for sins preached and taught. I want his resurrection proclaimed as the evidence of what Christ has done. We must care for all people regardless of who they are and what they do, because without Christ, they are damned because of their works and lack there of. We have only one hope and we should not hid it and keep it secret to ourselves within the world, and that includes the small Muslim nations to the United States of America. We cannot expect people to be curious about God, but must take the initiative as the Lord our God has commanded us. Remember we do not know who God has placed his special grace to, so we continue to labor wherever we are, because one had to do the same for us in God’s grace. So really are wants are meaningless to the task we have been given to do.

Pergamum, how can you expect people here in The US and the rest of the West to “do not want what is offered” if they do not hear or understand God’s truth of the Gospel? It is for that reason we need people here as well. You know my views on missions and how important I see them. True Christian stewardship places are resources in the hand of not just those who are out in another country , but trains those who are here to be a missionary to your next door neighbor, to your co-worker, to your family member, to your good friend a three streets down, and so on. Are we wasteful and neglectful of some things, yes. I am not claiming we are not. However, that pork on the top is something are leaders will have to give an account for as being our leaders, who were suppose to watch out for us and teach us.

So let us try to be balanced in our approach, because all men must repent and hear God’s truth and you know what that means to an end is now. We are not to be the hyper Calvinist people claim of some of us, nor must we recognize that some people who do not hear the Gospel is our personal fault. We all have gifts and a duty for the Kingdom and do what we must now where God has placed us, because remember he is sovereign and his will be done regardless. Let us be a people of grace and show that grace in love by preaching to are fellow man in Africa, South American, the West, the East, wherever we are the Gospel so that all men everywhere can hear the Gospel, have faith, and repent as the Lord wishes all men to do everywhere.

I do not think many in our churches are "well-fed", and I think we can see the evidence of that in our churches. They may have cotton candy, but not all that they need to have a growing diet to sustain their needs as they grow in Christ. You would not give your son cotton candy to live on; therefore just as in the church real food must be given for their growth in the church. We need them to have meat, carrots, spinach, and all of the nutritious doctrine that will sustain their souls. The Church has been given more then just red letters, and we have much to feast on, but most of are churches do not and the preachers have tickled the ears of those they preach to. And instead of giving up on the church, we must call her to repentence before it is to late for the people are straving and do not know it.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Since the Great Commission was given to the apostles to go and make disciples of all nations, and given that the need for a gospel witness is SO much higher in other countries, shouldn't we expect that a great majority of our seminary graduates will be sent out overseas as missionaries as opposed to serving in churches in the Western world?

Your premise seems to be that the leaders of our seminaries have got it all wrong, no?

AMR

No. They are doing many good things. But they keep preparing to feed the most well-fed instead of focusing on the most-hungry. They are doing good things, but are not allocating resources in proportion to where the needs lie. If most of the needs lie outside the US and seminary is primarily geared towards US service, then this does not seem like good strategy. Many, many seminaries and bible schools are very weak in missions preparation.

I am preparing to go to seminary myself, and having looked at a number of seminaries and the tracks of preparation that they offer I would agree with your comment that they are "very weak in missions preparation."

While I see this as a problem, I do not believe that the seminaries, or the individuals leading the seminaries, are the source of the problem (not that you do either).

The way I see it, the underlying disease that gives rise to the symptom that we are discussing in this thread (namely a lack of seminary trained men and women being sent outside of the US to win to Christ those who are living without the light of the gospel) lies not in the seminaries of America, but the churches of America.

How many pastors/elders are looking out upon the young in their church in order to identify, encourage, disciple and send them into missionary work?

I personally "wasted" (albeit under the sovereign hand of God) years as a young Christian sensing a call to the ministry, but sitting on my hands waiting for a "word from God" because I didn't want a subjective feeling to be the sole reason that I pursued shepherding God's flock as my life's work. During those years I had many pastors/elders ask me to lead youth group or Sunday School, but not one of them asked me if I felt called to give my life to shepherding God's people. Not one of these pastor/elders every looked at me, or any other young man in the church, and considered calling them into the pastoral work in the US, let alone among the unreached around the world.

If churches were connecting themselves to bible schools and seminaries and telling them that they were going to be sending their youth to them to be trained for gospel ministry overseas, I guarantee you that seminaries would be doing it. The seminaries should be serving the churches, and they are. The churches are driving the agenda and the programs of the seminaries. The churches just are not calling, discipling and sending future missionaries to seminaries and asking that they be prepared for global mission work.

I am afraid that many young people are "called" to ministry not from within the walls of the local church, but from the impersonal and detached stadiums of traveling youth rallies and "worship" events that provide an experience and guilt-driven pleas to do something for God.

[quote] [quote=Grimmson;644333]

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Those in the West, in America, are not Christians almost always because they do not want what is offered.

I have yet to meet someone who had no access to a bible in the USA. If someone were curious and wanted to seek, they could find easily here.

I would rather minister to the truly starving instead of spiritual anorexics who refuse to eat when the bread of life is within arm's reach.

I am surprised to some degree Pergamum’s statement, because despite the fact many non-Christians have access to the Bible they of course they will not come to God in faith. For it is man’s nature not to come to God because we are corrupt beings that are incapable of being good and run after the true. No one outside of God’s divine special grace has the ability to understand what God wants.

I would not say we live in a “spiritual anorexics who refuse to eat when the bread of life is within arm's reach”, but are instead are starving because they do not know who the bread of life is.

“For ‘whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.’ How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "LORD, who has believed our report?" So then faith [comes] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans 10:13-17 (NKJV)







Within an hour's drive there is a PCA, OPC or solid baptist church for most of the population of the US. If faith comes by hearing, those in the US have 100,000 times more opportunities to hear than some in the 10-40 Window. It is a matter of stewardship therefore, to try to send the Gospel to darker areas.

I am surprised that you are surprised by my statements.

Originally Posted by Grafted In

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

Your premise seems to be that the leaders of our seminaries have got it all wrong, no?

AMR

No. They are doing many good things. But they keep preparing to feed the most well-fed instead of focusing on the most-hungry. They are doing good things, but are not allocating resources in proportion to where the needs lie. If most of the needs lie outside the US and seminary is primarily geared towards US service, then this does not seem like good strategy. Many, many seminaries and bible schools are very weak in missions preparation.

I am preparing to go to seminary myself, and having looked at a number of seminaries and the tracks of preparation that they offer I would agree with your comment that they are "very weak in missions preparation."

While I see this as a problem, I do not believe that the seminaries, or the individuals leading the seminaries, are the source of the problem (not that you do either).

The way I see it, the underlying disease that gives rise to the symptom that we are discussing in this thread (namely a lack of seminary trained men and women being sent outside of the US to win to Christ those who are living without the light of the gospel) lies not in the seminaries of America, but the churches of America.

How many pastors/elders are looking out upon the young in their church in order to identify, encourage, disciple and send them into missionary work?

I personally "wasted" (albeit under the sovereign hand of God) years as a young Christian sensing a call to the ministry, but sitting on my hands waiting for a "word from God" because I didn't want a subjective feeling to be the sole reason that I pursued shepherding God's flock as my life's work. During those years I had many pastors/elders ask me to lead youth group or Sunday School, but not one of them asked me if I felt called to give my life to shepherding God's people. Not one of these pastor/elders every looked at me, or any other young man in the church, and considered calling them into the pastoral work in the US, let alone among the unreached around the world.

If churches were connecting themselves to bible schools and seminaries and telling them that they were going to be sending their youth to them to be trained for gospel ministry overseas, I guarantee you that seminaries would be doing it. The seminaries should be serving the churches, and they are. The churches are driving the agenda and the programs of the seminaries. The churches just are not calling, discipling and sending future missionaries to seminaries and asking that they be prepared for global mission work.

I am afraid that many young people are "called" to ministry not from within the walls of the local church, but from the impersonal and detached stadiums of traveling youth rallies and "worship" events that provide an experience and guilt-driven pleas to do something for God.

Yes, I agree.

In the NT we see that the whole church got together to fast and pray to see who they could send out. There was an intentional, deliberate effort to identify and send people out.

The church nowadays does not do that very often and are often surprised when a young person seems to be "getting the call" while in their midst. Sometimes when a young person does express such a desire, the church takes a wait and see approach. But, heavy mentoring, instead, is in order.

Local churches should be cultivating young people, mentoring them. While I do not think all pleas to "do something for God" are guilt-driven, but are worthy exhortations to young people, the nurturing of our people towards a more evangelistic faith ought to be coming from our local leadership.

Pergy, you wrote -

Originally Posted by Pergamum

At least a 15% rate of going overseas is more reasonable than what we currently have. Is this a failure for seminaries to prepare, is it a wrong focus, or what?

Please note that seminary isn't basic training. People don't "enlist" in the ministry and then go off to seminary and get told where their assignment will be. Seminaries produce and offer a a product for "consumption." In their case, the product they are selling is an education, but it is a product nonetheless. And like any other aspect of the marketplace, laws of supply and demand factor into the situation. In short, there are relatively few missionary training programs because there is little demand for it. It isn't the job of the seminary to somehow create demand.

The problem, in my opinion, begins and ends with the local church.

First, as I'm sure you're aware, there are countless folks who'll sit in the pews praying that the Lord will raise up missionaries, but then they quietly add the following caveat, "... Just not me or my kids!" The churches should do a better job of trying to instill a missionary spirit, a global vision, a truly universal zeal for the lost in their members. I do think that for all the flak short-term missions trips get, they do have a potentially helpful role in this process.

Second, as has been noted on this Board numerous times by several people, the state of the American church in general is so poor that we encourage many men to pursue the ministry who really have no place in ministry. We are so spiritually apathetic that when someone displays even "some" spiritual zeal, we think that this person is "super spiritual" and "obviously" called into the ministry. So this person gets an artifical sense of calling. But since he HASN'T been summoned by the Lord, he does not have the internal drive and zeal to truly let goods and kindred go, and so the ministry gets looked at like just another career option, be it a noble one.


Anyway, this is overly simplistic, and certainly not all encompassing, but the following suggestions would go a long way:

1. Develop a vision that is global in its perspective. Gospel zeal should ooze from every pore in the church. In this respect I think Piper's church is phenomenal.

2. Churches should seriously raise the bar when it comes to endorsing or encouraging men to pursue the ministry.

I have had several young people (18-23) desire to learn more about missionary work and their church-going-presumably-saved parents trying to talk them out of it. In one case, I got a personal email from a college-aged student's mother asking me not to email their "kid" anymore because it was "stirring up" their minds when they should be worried about getting an education so that they could land a good job. I am a dangerous influence I guess.


So, yes, I agree 1,000 Percent that this MUST begin with the local church.

Wow, I have quiet a bit to say. First of all I think there an assumption on many parts what a solid church is and by the vast majority of churches do not meet those qualification, even in hour drive from where I lived in Tucson. You want moralism you can find it. But the gospel as we see in 1 Corinthians 15. I settle for a church that did not preach the full council of God and the result was fighting and discouragement with the pastor, because he refused many times to go with the plain meeting of the text and replace it by whatever is current Christian idol or book he was reading say. In fact he was boastful about the fact he didn’t know Greek or Hebrew. Si we should be careful with the numbers games that we play for all men need to hear the gospel regardless of where they are. Many people who claim to go to church and have done so all of their life do not know the gospel, do you expect those to go out and preach it? If your answer is yes, then we have a real issue and the United States is just as an important straigic spot for the Gospel.

I have a main issue with hoe we prepare the youth. Many times its based from some type of camp or conference experience that gives them a high but no solid foundation and if you ask what the Gospel is, many of them cannot tell you. The reason is because of what their foundation is, and its through Finny and not Christ. We have turned for many missionary work into:

1) A short term vacation
2) A form of works righteous outside for love for God’s people
3) A business that produces little if no fruit, such as these youth camps and dare I say the Crusades, where God’s ordained means are not followed but are replaced like I said with Finny.

Should we excite people about missions? Yes, however we send many out for that experience that are not ready. The youth must be trained, before they seriously go out and there is no training. Would I allow a young person that came to faith in a short amount of time to go out? Depends on where we are going and what are goal is. I certainly would not send the teen if I didn’t think they were mature to handle it.

Many people here need to know Christ and some of the biblical solid churches cannot afford to send someone out. They just cannot afford to make the sacrifice. We cannot afford to turn this into a numbers game.

Have you ever been to a church started by missionaries without that doctrinal foundation that needed? It is a scare place, especially in some central and South American countries, and even China and Africa. We need to send trained people and not young people who do not have a strong grasp of the Gospel, who cannot teach simple truths like how we are justified before God, or many our essential beliefs.

I agree with Ben a 100 percent regarding the super spiritual and the calling. Zeal must also exist with patience, otherwise the effect with be disaster. And I think we need to remember that not all men are called to do the same work for the Lord, but as the body we are called to the same mission.

Originally Posted by Grimmson

Wow, I have quiet a bit to say. First of all I think there an assumption on many parts what a solid church is and by the vast majority of churches do not meet those qualification, even in hour drive from where I lived in Tucson. You want moralism you can find it. But the gospel as we see in 1 Corinthians 15. I settle for a church that did not preach the full council of God and the result was fighting and discouragement with the pastor, because he refused many times to go with the plain meeting of the text and replace it by whatever is current Christian idol or book he was reading say. In fact he was boastful about the fact he didn’t know Greek or Hebrew. Si we should be careful with the numbers games that we play for all men need to hear the gospel regardless of where they are. Many people who claim to go to church and have done so all of their life do not know the gospel, do you expect those to go out and preach it? If your answer is yes, then we have a real issue and the United States is just as an important straigic spot for the Gospel.

I have a main issue with hoe we prepare the youth. Many times its based from some type of camp or conference experience that gives them a high but no solid foundation and if you ask what the Gospel is, many of them cannot tell you. The reason is because of what their foundation is, and its through Finny and not Christ. We have turned for many missionary work into:

1) A short term vacation
2) A form of works righteous outside for love for God’s people
3) A business that produces little if no fruit, such as these youth camps and dare I say the Crusades, where God’s ordained means are not followed but are replaced like I said with Finny.

Should we excite people about missions? Yes, however we send many out for that experience that are not ready. The youth must be trained, before they seriously go out and there is no training. Would I allow a young person that came to faith in a short amount of time to go out? Depends on where we are going and what are goal is. I certainly would not send the teen if I didn’t think they were mature to handle it.

Many people here need to know Christ and some of the biblical solid churches cannot afford to send someone out. They just cannot afford to make the sacrifice. We cannot afford to turn this into a numbers game.

Have you ever been to a church started by missionaries without that doctrinal foundation that needed? It is a scare place, especially in some central and South American countries, and even China and Africa. We need to send trained people and not young people who do not have a strong grasp of the Gospel, who cannot teach simple truths like how we are justified before God, or many our essential beliefs.

I agree with Ben a 100 percent regarding the super spiritual and the calling. Zeal must also exist with patience, otherwise the effect with be disaster. And I think we need to remember that not all men are called to do the same work for the Lord, but as the body we are called to the same mission.

If you consider most PCA or OPC churches or baptist churches affiliated with FIRE or ARBCA to be solid, then you can find a solid church relatively close to you. It is better than the situation in some places in Asia where there are cities of one million and no known believers of any type.

Of course, if you restrict your view of who a Christian is and what a real church is, or even a fairly solid church is, down to a very narrow definition... then no definition I give you will satisfay you. Please don't get the Elijah Complex. Most cities and medium sized town in the US have something that qualifies as a real church.

Also, most can get to a Bible within an hour and go to sermon audio or the internet too. This is NOT the case in many many places in the world.



About some of your other points:

-The average missionaries I know have much better doctrine than the average preachers in the US.

-The average church in the US has much more money than they realize and they live very pampered lives compared to even Americans 50 years ago and 98% of the rest of the world right now. If we truly prioritize missions sending, we will be surprised just how many more we could send.

-I don't see many people being sent out that are not ready. There is a great deal of training before they go.

--We are not sending out teens. Most mission orgs are NOT like YWAM, and the average age in my missionary org is FORTY YEARS OLD and many have had considerable church experience in US churches before they are sent out. I am a young guy in my org at 34.



You have quite a bit to say, but what is your main point?

My main point is that we need to prioritize missions work to a greater degree and that even our training facilities reflect this lack of proper prioritization. If we had more solid training facilities all of these bad trends you are highlighting would decrease, wouldn't they?

If we prioritized missions more, we would not only prioritize getting more people "over there" but we would also prioritize training them better so that they would operate more Biblically once over there. Your objections only serve to drive home my point more...we should be training missionaries better, and this would invovle better training and better missions programs at seminiares and bible colleges.

I want to first address your main point.

“If we had more solid training facilities all of these bad trends you are highlighting would decrease, wouldn't they?”

The issue I think is not solid training facilites, but solid churches not being as involved as they should. We depend to much on para-church organization and to some degree seminaries for the training up of our leaders, instead of them being home grown.

Most professional missionaries I know are no were close to that Fifty age mark and closer to my age of 29. How many around that 50 mark are professional verses short term missions? Personally I have no problem with retired people going out anyway, their alive and most of their responsibility for family has been completed as parents and the same in the work place.

I know of many churches in Asia that reach past that million mark for that city’s population, so there are many churches that exist in the higher population, they are just a bit more secretive for one or more reasons, such as their nation being closed.

In regards to Sermon Audio, let us first remember that should not be a replacement for church. Two, it is in English, and some perhaps in Spanish. If pastors in Asia want to construct something similar in China or India then they should. But lets face it most people in the US are not as big fans of Sermon Audio verses people like me.

In regards to FIRE or ARBCA, we don’t have a church in Tucson affiliated with them. In fact we don’t have a OPC. There are places here in the US you may have to travel longer then an hour for a church here in the US due to population, this is no different in many places in Asia.

And concerning getting Bibles in people’s hands, the unbelieving do not care of they have access to a bible or not. Sure you have freedom, doesn’t mean they will use it for they are unregenerated.

My main point is in a place like ours where the vast majority of the Church is dead or dying we need to missions here and actually this battle ground would be good preparation for else where in the world. And we do need to becareful who we send, but the local church can decide that.