I believe most evangelical missionaries are theological light-weights

[Pergamum]

A true confession after 8 years of missionary service:

After meeting many evangelical missionaries (and being one myself), I now no longer generally trust even respected evangelical missionaries (even leaders) to be solid theologians. They are more likely to be more well-studied in the latest fads, trends, gimmicks, or techniques than they are in being grounded in the basics of Christian doctrine.


I am back home on furlough and am just blown away by how simply the pastors of my home church explain doctrine and prove it from Scripture. Such a depth. Then, I go and I visit churches and they laud the travelling missionary, and yet it is those local pastors that can run theological circles around me and most missionaries I know.

This gives me not only a great respect for so many US-based pastors, but it also humbles me as to my own puny little theological understanding. It also gravely alarms me that many evangelical missionaries I know are theological light-weights.

Why the disconnect? What is wrong? Why are not more missionaries solid theologians?

 

[earl40]

As a layman I understand and see the advantage of having ordained pastors being missionaries and why the PCA officially only sends pastors to be missionaries.

 

[arapahoepark]

From what I see is many a young person not being called to the ordained ministry yet wanting to really help out in a large way. So where do they go? To the mission field. I think they have a zeal without knowledge in this context.

 

[Covenant Joel]

As a layman I understand and see the advantage of having ordained pastors being missionaries and why the PCA officially only sends pastors to be missionaries.

That is not accurate in terms of who is sent out. I would say that it's not necessarily even a majority.

In terms of the original post, I think there are several factors at play:

(1) In terms of broader evangelicalism, doctrine is simply deemphasized, particularly in certain schools. Particularly for those going overseas, anthropology and other social sciences are often given more importance. This is obviously a problem.

(2) It can be hard for overseas workers to stay up on the theological issues of the day back in the States simply because they're wrestling with different issues in their contexts. Mark Jones' new book on Antinomianism may be great, but if you're trying to defending the integrity of the Scriptures to M*slms every day, obviously you just can't expend the same amount of energy on the latest controversy back home. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

(3) Not all agencies have standards for what they should know or be able to explain. Some have certain hours of Bible credit as a requirement, some have known, but it varies. But obviously, those who have gone through ordination (at least something like the PCA's process) will have a leg up on someone who just did 12 hours of Bible college credit. So as more and more people have gone out in support roles, we do see a decrease in theological awareness.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I believe most evangelical missionaries are theological light-weights

I have shared that opinion since I began attending Moody Bible Institute in 1998. There virtually every evangelical parachurch missions agency shows up for recruiting purposes. I was uniformly dissapointed in both the agencies and in those who showd an interest. As you imply in your post, it seemed they were much more concerned with matters of pragmatics than with principle or precision.

 

[DMcFadden]

Multifactoral problem:

* Mainline denominational missions - mostly medical, social, agricultural, and educational personnel. Few church planters, few ordained clergy, even fewer theologians among them. And, remember that the split in the ABC back in '47 was occasioned by questions of theological liberalism on the mission field. The pastors at home were questioning whether the ABC missionaries on the field believed in the deity of Christ and the necessity of an atonement. My guess is that other denoms had a similar problem. Even if you went to a seminary, you are not likely to know much about theology if it was a liberal one. Take a look at the seminary curriculum listings for the schools serving the mainline denoms. Classes in alternative spirituality, feminist this, that, or the other thing, and learning from Buddhist techniques for end of life care are not going to prepare you for understanding the questions of the substitutionary atonement or the Chalcedonian formula.

After doing ordination exams for more than 500 folks over the years, I am decidedly NOT impressed with the knowledge base for seminary grads from non-orthodox schools. One candidate came to us after graduating from an ABC school. The entire sequence of sys theo classes for this M.Div. grad were taken in "designer" courses such as "Theology of Hope," "Feminist Theology," and the like. There was not ONE class that could be construed as fitting the traditional nomenclature of systematic theology (God, Christ, Holy Spirit, Bible, Man, Sin, Salvation, Church, Sacraments, and Eschatology).

* Evangelical parachurch missions. See Ben's post above (#5). Zeal + pragmatic technique is more important than theological precision. Also, remember that "evangelical" includes everything such as AG, Fourscore, Osteen, in addition to more orthodox folks. You cannot expect many of them to know, care, or be informed about traditional theology. Consider the schools training "evangelicals" in some of the more Pentecostal traditions!

In my experience, not many theologically deep (or even competent) persons end up becoming career missionaries in the parachurch organizations. Even the Wycliffe folks I have known over the years were trained in linguistics, NOT theology. They knew a lot about how to reduce a spoken language to writing and then to translate into it, but very little about theology. Contra Ben (a little bit anyway), however, I would be much happier with a Moody grad and their 60 units of Bible, theology, and the like over most of the people going into parachurch agencies.

* Many evangelical schools are moving increasingly to the fads over the "meat and potatoes" of traditional Christianity. My alma mater hosts continuing education events for pastors featuring the most trendy of speakers (e.g., Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell). Imagine what the school is teaching the students!

* It is great to hear that the PCA only sends ordained ministers. But, that is a rather elite standard compared to most sending agencies.

 

[hammondjones]

Why are not more missionaries solid theologians?

(1) In terms of broader evangelicalism, doctrine is simply deemphasized, particularly in certain schools. Particularly for those going overseas, anthropology and other social sciences are often given more importance. This is obviously a problem.

I have a friend who interviews those interested in joining a certain evangelical mission, and he often speaks of the distressing lack of Biblical knowledge of the candidates. The missions are concerned and sometimes prescribe remedial training, even for long-time believers, but they can only work with what comes through the door. What goes around comes around.

 

[Pilgrim]

Why the disconnect? What is wrong? Why are not more missionaries solid theologians?

Unless these are "Sovereign Grace" missionaries you have in mind, I think much of this perception on your part is because of the churches you've been frequenting. That's a small subset of conservative American Christianity whereas you appear to be comparing all evangelical missionaries to those "Sovereign Grace" or Calvinistic Baptist preachers.

 

[Leslie]

There are 24 hours in each day. One can choose to spend the majority of one's time in ministry or in theology. Becoming theologically "deep," whatever that means, takes time. It is not time that can be spent in ministry. When one is surrounded with desperate needs, it is indefensible to tell people, "I don't care about your hunger/poverty/malaria/homelessness. I need to go about reading a chapter of Calvin's Institutes today." Pure religion and undefiled before God is NOT refining your understanding of TULIP to the nth degree. This is not to say that becoming theologically competent is wrong. It is just not first priority for most missionaries. When the developing world has a glut of missionaries, then and only then will we all have time for the fine points. But that's not going to happen next week.

 

[Edward]

I believe most evangelical missionaries are theological light-weights

I'm not sure that I disagree with your headline, but I'd go a bit further

I believe most evangelical [strike] missionaries [/strike] pastors are theological light-weights

 

[Edward]

I am back home on furlough and am just blown away by how simply the pastors of my home church explain doctrine and prove it from Scripture. Such a depth. Then, I go and I visit churches and they laud the travelling missionary, and yet it is those local pastors that can run theological circles around me and most missionaries I know.

Are you confusing preaching skills and theological knowledge? Many of your prayer threads have concerned medical emergencies with which you have to deal. It seems that you are somewhat of a hybrid between a medical missionary and an evangelist. Perhaps if you had put all of your eggs in the preaching basket, your skills in that area might be stronger. But do you think that would have suited you for your present call?

 

[Matthew1344]

Correct what I am about to say, I am always looking to refine what I believe.

Missions is not sending people. It is sending the truth through people. If we send people with no truth, how then can the missionary call men to repentance and disciple them to live a holy life. It doesn't matter if we send missionaries that are good social workers, that's not the main concern. The main concern is the souls of men.

We need to send missionaries that are devoted to the truth. Missionaries that are devoted to being conformed into the image of Jesus. Missionaries that are devoted to proclaim his exelencies. These things can only be done when you are devoted to the Word. How can you be conformed to look like someone you don't know? How can you call men to repent, turn, and live like someone that you can't tell them about? How can you proclaim the excellencies, virtues, and attributes of God, when you don't know them? How can you expect others to make known his excellencies when you can't teach them to them?

Missionaries are sent to make known God and lead people to him in worship. For this to happen they must know him.

When I was on the field I got ragged for putting a huge importance on reading the Bible everyday. So you can imagine what others felt about me reading other books for hours. Once someone said "I bet your supporters wouldn't like you reading all the time" I simply told them I don't live for my supporters , I live for God. He has given me a heart to love him and meditate on his word day and night. After this is done, then I go to the world. But first I got to wrestle in the word."

He told me he didn't agree wit it and that he was more of a James 22 guy. I told him "me too. It's not James 1 over psalm 1 though. It's both all the time. There is not a balance. It is do both at every opportunity that you get. You can't say that you prefer 1 part of Scripture over the other."

I saw so many times people's motives to be great! They really did want to love people. But truly loving people is telling them about Jesus and what he did on that tree. And for you to communicate that God must transform you, and God transforms you in his word. That is why I believe that every Christian should be devoted to it. And that is why the Psalmist says that the Bible is much more desirable than fine gold. To him, if someone offered him 1 billion dollars to never read the bible again, he would have turned it down. He knows that the word is how he is going to know his God. And only when we know God can we reach the world. Try to convert men without knowing God...it can't be done.

 

[DMcFadden]

There are 24 hours in each day. One can choose to spend the majority of one's time in ministry or in theology. Becoming theologically "deep," whatever that means, takes time. It is not time that can be spent in ministry. When one is surrounded with desperate needs, it is indefensible to tell people, "I don't care about your hunger/poverty/malaria/homelessness. I need to go about reading a chapter of Calvin's Institutes today." Pure religion and undefiled before God is NOT refining your understanding of TULIP to the nth degree. This is not to say that becoming theologically competent is wrong. It is just not first priority for most missionaries. When the developing world has a glut of missionaries, then and only then will we all have time for the fine points. But that's not going to happen next week.

Hence, the need to send people who are ALREADY theologically qualified and competent and do not need "remedial" training in Bible and theology while on the field.

 

[earl40]

As a layman I understand and see the advantage of having ordained pastors being missionaries and why the PCA officially only sends pastors to be missionaries.

That is not accurate in terms of who is sent out. I would say that it's not necessarily even a majority.

Not wanting to derail this thread I shall only state that the BCO 20-12 does indeed state what what I conveyed.

 

[DMcFadden]

Leslie (Mary),

I got to reflecting on your post. We are in substantial agreement on much of what you say. Young pastors who think that blogging, surfing the net, and participating in theological message boards (even this one) are a SUBSTITUTE for the hard work of ministry give me heartburn. Ministering to desperately needy people is a big part of why they went to the mission field in the first place. However, judging by the level of theological acumen by most of the missionaries I personally know, some of the comments in this thread are not too strong. Most evangelicals in America are not represented by the elite niche of the PCA, OP, ARP, and FIRE. In fact, my guess is that lay people in some of the groups listed would know more theology than a lot of the missionaries sent out by the sending agencies I am acquainted with in the US.

 

[Pergamum]

I am back home on furlough and am just blown away by how simply the pastors of my home church explain doctrine and prove it from Scripture. Such a depth. Then, I go and I visit churches and they laud the travelling missionary, and yet it is those local pastors that can run theological circles around me and most missionaries I know.

Are you confusing preaching skills and theological knowledge? Many of your prayer threads have concerned medical emergencies with which you have to deal. It seems that you are somewhat of a hybrid between a medical missionary and an evangelist. Perhaps if you had put all of your eggs in the preaching basket, your skills in that area might be stronger. But do you think that would have suited you for your present call?

I am talking theological knowledge. Many of the broadly evangelical speakers I have heard can out-speak many of us reformed folks. They are more eloquent. But, our message is better. P.s. pray for me while I preach this Sunday morning (I preach very often as a missionary, though much of my work is small group and one-on-one and I am not the greatest speaker).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Why the disconnect? What is wrong? Why are not more missionaries solid theologians?

Would seem to me to be related to what the word "missionary" means from a Biblical perspective, no?

 

[Covenant Joel]

As a layman I understand and see the advantage of having ordained pastors being missionaries and why the PCA officially only sends pastors to be missionaries.

That is not accurate in terms of who is sent out. I would say that it's not necessarily even a majority.

Not wanting to derail this thread I shall only state that the BCO 20-12 does indeed state what what I conveyed.

We can go further into this another place perhaps, but I don't think that's what BCO 20-12 conveys.

 

[earl40]

As a layman I understand and see the advantage of having ordained pastors being missionaries and why the PCA officially only sends pastors to be missionaries.

That is not accurate in terms of who is sent out. I would say that it's not necessarily even a majority.

Not wanting to derail this thread I shall only state that the BCO 20-12 does indeed state what what I conveyed.

We can go further into this another place perhaps, but I don't think that's what BCO 20-12 conveys.

Will do when I get the chance. This is an interesting subject.

 

[Tripel]

Why are not more missionaries solid theologians?

I agree with you. It's a good question you're asking. And we should probably also ask why more solid theologians are not missionaries.

 

[earl40]

If we look into the past history of the church we would see that the VAST majority of theologians were pastors and before the 18th century maybe all were pastors?

 

[Rom]

There are 24 hours in each day. One can choose to spend the majority of one's time in ministry or in theology. Becoming theologically "deep," whatever that means, takes time. It is not time that can be spent in ministry. When one is surrounded with desperate needs, it is indefensible to tell people, "I don't care about your hunger/poverty/malaria/homelessness. I need to go about reading a chapter of Calvin's Institutes today." Pure religion and undefiled before God is NOT refining your understanding of TULIP to the nth degree. This is not to say that becoming theologically competent is wrong. It is just not first priority for most missionaries. When the developing world has a glut of missionaries, then and only then will we all have time for the fine points. But that's not going to happen next week.

Good perspective to have. The lack of good laborers has always been the case, seemingly - "the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few". Where I really get concerned however, is when we see 'missionaries', who have abandoned or do not even understand or profess the basics (fundamentals?) of the Christian religion - as many have attested to here in this thread.

In that case, they are no longer Christian Missionaries, but rather - some other thing entirely. And this is why I think it is important, that those who are sent (as Dennis put it so well), already have a firm grounding in the Scriptures and the system of Doctrine contained therein; so that when they have to help a child who is dying, the Holy Spirit has equipped them to truly minister to that child, and not simply heap up platitudes.

After all, in the great Commission Jesus says to teach these disciples, "...to observe all things that I have commanded you". One must know what Jesus has commanded in order to make Disciples. Zeal, as commendable as it is - is insufficient to make a truly Christian Missionary.

 

[Grimmson]

Why are not more missionaries solid theologians?

I agree with you. It's a good question you're asking. And we should probably also ask why more solid theologians are not missionaries.

I think the answer there is easy. Money.

There are 24 hours in each day. One can choose to spend the majority of one's time in ministry or in theology. Becoming theologically "deep," whatever that means, takes time. It is not time that can be spent in ministry. When one is surrounded with desperate needs, it is indefensible to tell people, "I don't care about your hunger/poverty/malaria/homelessness. I need to go about reading a chapter of Calvin's Institutes today." Pure religion and undefiled before God is NOT refining your understanding of TULIP to the nth degree. This is not to say that becoming theologically competent is wrong. It is just not first priority for most missionaries. When the developing world has a glut of missionaries, then and only then will we all have time for the fine points. But that's not going to happen next week.

Hence, the need to send people who are ALREADY theologically qualified and competent and do not need "remedial" training in Bible and theology while on the field.

Leslie, I completely agree with you. I think part of the problem is the developed separation between theology applied and ministry. And I think part of this is also being reinforced by the professionalization of ministry and seminaries.

Dennis, it would be nice to send out qualified theological men but there are a couple of factors that hurt men to go out to the mission. The first is major debt. I cannot tell you how crazy I think it is for men (many times with families) go into debt for the gospel and people of God. You do not want to send men out to the mission field in major debt. And I find this issue strange if these same men are “under care” with their presbyteries. If they truly were under care then such students would not be placed in this situation by the time that they graduated and became licensed. I think another issue is that higher education seems to promote in general a desire towards comfortable living. So the more education a person receives less likely they are willing to give it up for the mission of the church to other areas of the world. This is a fundamental an issue of heart. I would also classify potential ministers in debt as an issue of presbyteries’ hearts. And I think there is non-talked about issue of the less gifted going to the mission while the cream of the crop stays in major urban areas in their home country to preach and teach. And this does seem to be a long established pattern for well over two centuries that even my modern church professor in seminary recognized. If a presbytery wants a higher educated theologian out on the mission field then as far as I am concerned they need to place it on the theologian’s conscience and send him. Of course the practical question is why don’t they? Because in such a system you should not be sending ourselves on our own accord for ministry.

 

[Toasty]

A true confession after 8 years of missionary service:

After meeting many evangelical missionaries (and being one myself), I now no longer generally trust even respected evangelical missionaries (even leaders) to be solid theologians. They are more likely to be more well-studied in the latest fads, trends, gimmicks, or techniques than they are in being grounded in the basics of Christian doctrine.


I am back home on furlough and am just blown away by how simply the pastors of my home church explain doctrine and prove it from Scripture. Such a depth. Then, I go and I visit churches and they laud the travelling missionary, and yet it is those local pastors that can run theological circles around me and most missionaries I know.

This gives me not only a great respect for so many US-based pastors, but it also humbles me as to my own puny little theological understanding. It also gravely alarms me that many evangelical missionaries I know are theological light-weights.

Why the disconnect? What is wrong? Why are not more missionaries solid theologians?

Do you think an evangelical missionary should have an MA or MDiv?

Some parachurch mission agencies require their missionaries to have taken 30 units of Bible classes.

 

[Pergamum]

Henry,

I don't believe all evangelical missionaries should be required to have an M.Div. And this begs the question of WHO could and should require such a thing (the agency or the local church who sends out the missionary)?

 

[Pergamum]

Why are not more missionaries solid theologians?

I agree with you. It's a good question you're asking. And we should probably also ask why more solid theologians are not missionaries.

I once remarked how most missionaries I know do not have large theological libraries, even in places where they can do so without too much trouble. I asked why more missionaries do not read more solid theological books (i.e. why are not more missionaries heavy readers).... to which a friend asked, "Why are not more readers missionaries!" i.e. they are reading heavily in the right books and spending hours and hours reading, but why isn't this translating into doing?

 

[whirlingmerc]

For good or bad, a traveling preacher can get by with a handful of sermons and talks. A pastor has to shepherd on a continuous basis.
There are advantages and disadvantages CS Lewis for example didn't have the regular shepherding tasks and could focus on projects he was exceptionally skilled at.

I suspect one of the main reasons maybe for what you see is a belief the gospel is the little thing that tips you in the kingdom and not the big thing you live all of life with.
We went to a mega church wanna be church years ago where the pastor would often say 'evangelicals have a hundred times as much theology as they need"
You buy into those ideas and its deep and wide and shallow

 

[arapahoepark]

Henry,

I don't believe all evangelical missionaries should be required to have an M.Div. And this begs the question of WHO could and should require such a thing (the agency or the local church who sends out the missionary)?

Do you believe they should be theologically competent? You don't have to have an MDiv to be theologically in the know.

 

[Pergamum]

Trent:

Yes, of course (or I wouldn't have started this thread).

 

[whirlingmerc]

Romans 15 We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3 For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.”