Is the US a Mission Field?

[Blue Tick]

At Perg's suggestion...

Is the US a mission field?

Utah sure is! Living in Utah is a mission field. We are constantly defining our biblical terms to Mormons. We're engaging the cultural with evangelism, debates, and outreaches with inter personal community relations. In Utah county home to BYU there are fewer Christians per capita then anywhere else in the country possible in the world. There’s a tremendous need for laborers to minister the gospel to the Mormon people. No language training necessary! A little Mormon culture indoctrination will help but no language barrier.

Anyway is the US a mission field? Just ask the Koreans…

 

[Herald]

What nation isn't a mission field? So long as the gospel needs to be proclaimed the whole earth is a mission field.

 

[Blue Tick]

Bill, Action! Love the new avatar.

Ditto to your post. I agree.

I'm just trying to balance the need for home missions. There are plenty of people here in the US who have not heard the gospel.

 

[Herald]

Bill, Action! Love the new avatar.

Ditto to your post. I agree.

I'm just trying to balance the need for home missions. There are plenty of people here in the US who have not heard the gospel.

John, the United States has the most powerful weapon in the gospel arsenal: the pulpit! Faithful preachers of the Word of God are our missionaries. America has problems but there are still many faithful heralds of the gospel.

 

[Pergamum]

Yes and no, depending on how we define our terms:


NO: The Bible and Biblical literature abounds in the English language, churches are in every city, Christian radio is in abundance. The mission field certainly is not "The West to the Rest" but is anywhere where the Gospel light is not, and so the mission field are those dark places that need to receive missionaries. The US is relatively light and has many Gospel resources and send missionaries, so it is a sending country and not a receiving country.



YES. The US is a mission field because really there is no such things as "THE mission field" this term being a symbolic usage to designate anywhere where the Gospel is lacking and the Gospel lacks in some select places in the US some would say.




My own preference: I think it is inane to call places like Atlanta Georgia with the same terminology as we call Jakarta, Indonesia lest we lump them together. I think we should prioritize the latter and the term "mission field" helps us to designate places we should target. Besides, language study is not usually needed in Atlanta Georgia but is for Jakarta - and I think that traditionally "evangelism" has been defined as being within one's cultural boundaries and "missions" is usually defined as crossing cultures.

However, in the States where we must cross cultural boundaries such as tring to evanglize Hong Kong shop-keepers in San Francisco (or the Mormons) we could legitimately call these missions field, a term now used more ethno-linguistically than geographically.

 

[Ivan]

The United States is easily a mission field. The vast majority of our nation does not trust Christ. That's a mission field to me.

 

[Theognome]

My own preference: I think it is inane to call places like Atlanta Georgia with the same terminology as we call Jakarta, Indonesia lest we lump them together. I think we should prioritize the latter and the term "mission field" helps us to designate places we should target. Besides, language study is not usually needed in Atlanta Georgia but is for Jakarta - and I think that traditionally "evangelism" has been defined as being within one's cultural boundaries and "missions" is usually defined as crossing cultures.

However, in the States where we must cross cultural boundaries such as tring to evanglize Hong Kong shop-keepers in San Francisco (or the Mormons) we could legitimately call these missions field, a term now used more ethno-linguistically than geographically.

Technically (as has been pointed out above), Atlanta and Jakarta are mission fields, though I agree they ain't the same thing. Would perhaps further defining the mission field in question be helpful? For example:

Industrial Mission Field
Rural MF
Persecuted MF
Etc. MF


Theognome

 

[Grace Alone]

John, we know a pastor from NC who planted a PCA church in your area a couple of years ago. His name is Tim Barton and the church is Jordan Presbyterian. It is in West Jordan.

 

[mvdm]

The United States is easily a mission field. The vast majority of our nation does not trust Christ. That's a mission field to me.

Agreed. And as Paul Washer has noted-- "We really don't have alot of churches in North America. We have alot of brick buildings with manicured lawns and people inside that need the gospel."

 

[Ivan]

the united states is easily a mission field. The vast majority of our nation does not trust Christ. That's a mission field to me.

agreed. And as Paul washer has noted-- "we really don't have alot of churches in north america. We have alot of brick buildings with manicured lawns and people inside that need the gospel."

Amen!

 

[Pergamum]

If you had 100 church planters graduate from seminary wanting to serve, where would you prefer that they serve if they were all equally open to all possibilities - 100 more pastors to Atlanta Georgia, or Jakarta, Indonesia?

The "mission field" terminology attempts to target "darker" and "needier" areas so that limited resources can be applied to the most needy areas.

Pooling 90% of all monies and resources among the "reached" is bad stewardship.

 

[Ivan]

Pooling 90% of all monies and resources among the "reached" is bad stewardship.

Who says they're "reached"? I could take 100 church planters and put them in the upper Midwest and barely touch the need.

 

[Pergamum]

Pooling 90% of all monies and resources among the "reached" is bad stewardship.

Who says they're "reached"? I could take 100 church planters and put them in the upper Midwest and barely touch the need.

Most missions committees have defined "unreached" as having less than 2% of the population as professing Christian, or if an ethno-linguistic group lacks an indigenous means of reproducing the church.

For instance, the Sundanese of West Java have less than one-half of one percent of its 32 million people even professing Christ (whether that profession is true or not is another matter).

The USA has a great proportion of its population professing faith. By all missiological definitions, the US is "reached" even though a lot more work needs to be done. Despite the chaff, there is much good wheat...so much so that we still supply much of the world's missionary supply.


Again, if 100 seminary grads where equally open to all areas in the world, I would much prefer them to go minister among the Sundanese than among the folks of Atlanta, Georgia.

The Sundanse have;

(1) less access to the Gospel,
(2) less Gospel materials in their language,
(3) more oppressive structures and higher ethno-linguistc and socio-political barriers to the Gospel, to include persecution
(4) less workers and a weaker indigenous church.



All the world has needs, but to speak relatively the USA is fat and bulimic, puking out the Word of Life while many other places truly starve.

In that regard, if we are to adopt the imperfect term "mission field" than West Java is the mission field and Atlanta Georgia perhaps is not.

 

[Pergamum]

p.s. most of these terms are imperfect.

Our ultimate job is to disciple the nations, and that includes ours.

There is a stewarship issue at stake,however, in that those with more knowledge want to try to prioritize those areas that are the most lacking in knowledge.

Various definitions, statistics and attempts to splice peoples into people-groups, and to define "reached" versus "unreached" are reasonable efforts at prioritizing need....and I defend strongly that we ought to be prioritizing need.


Google the Joshua Project, the Caleb Projector get Patrick Johnstone's Operation World.

 

[Pergamum]

Here's an atom bomb for your consideration. I am expecting flak for this,but this is good stuff forus to chew on:


We may say that the U.S. is a mission field, but practically, I do not think it is seen that way. I.e. we say it IS a mission field, but are we planting, harvesting or working this "field"?



Here's an example:

In San Diego County, greatly due to the presence of Westminster Seminary California, there are many confessionallyReformed churches of all different types. There are PCA, OPC, URC,RCUS, ARP, and even RPCNA churches throughout the county. Being right on the border of Mexico, San Diego County is also home to one of thelargest Spanish-speaking populations in the country.

So how many Reformed churches in San Diego County are there withSpanish-speaking churches? As of two years ago, to my knowledge,there was only ONE: New Life PCA in Escondido, which establishedMision Nueva Vida. That church is probably not considered to be confessionally Reformed: they were widely criticized for leaving theOPC, and it was the model church for the reworking of the RegulativePrinciple of Worship when John Frame was the music minister. In the last two years, Harbor Presbyterian church planted twoSpanish-speaking churches. Harbor Presbyterian Church was started bychurch planters from Redeemer Presbyterian Church (Tim Keller), one ofwhom was a former pastor of New Life PCA. Again, not these are notconfessionally Reformed churches.

There may be Spanish-speaking confessionally Reformed church plants inSan Diego County in the works, but I am not aware of any.

Now, let's be honest. Spanish is THE easiest language for an English speaker to learn. Not only is the language is simple, but every school teaches it, and in California, there are many Spanish speakersaround, not to mention Spanish radio and television.

If, as Bill Brown said, "faithful preachers of the Word of God are our missionaries," and we truly believe that preaching is God's ordained means for the gospel to go out, then we need to have, not one, but several Spanish-speaking church plants in order to preach the gospel to them. San Diego County is very international. Beyond Spanish, there are dozens of other languages commonly spoken, such as Tagalog,Portuguese, Vietnamese, Amharic, and Somali. None of these have Reformed churches in their language.

The mission field IS in our backyard, but it appears that we are not making the effort to reach these people.

To someone who thinks about missions, these needs are obvious, but to your average seminary student, it probably is not. Westminster Seminary in Escondido has been training Reformed ministers for almost thirty years. Why, then, are there no confessionally Reformed churches in San Diego County in other languages (besides Korean)? I'm not sure, but I think one of the reasons is that they have no resident faculty in missions.


One of the most frustrating things about foreign missions is that often, the resident churches do not want to make the effort to reach out to the surrounding cultures. This is especially common among churches in Muslim countries. Unfortunately, we in the United Statescan be just as bad.




A possible excuse those who did not like this above post might give is this, ""They should learn English so we can preach to them." Those who give this feeble excuse have no concept of cross-cultural missions.The Great Commission says "GO," not "wait for them to learn your language and come to your church."





Thoughts?

 

[Prufrock]

I agree with the sentiment expressed here. People might roll their eyes at this and scoff at such a comparison, but the same thing is often true in heavily urban, rundown areas. Flint, MI, (the former murder capital) is what I have in mind. It is mostly made up of what people call "the hip-hop" culture. It's a different world -- the mentality, the mores, the customs: they're simply different from "us" and it's detrimental to pretend that they're not. And there is one church in the city that has taken this into consideration; I find it sad that more have not.

However, I do tend to not like the term "missionary" being applied to places where the gospel already is established. I think Atlanta has no need of missionaries. Its churches which are already there simply need to do the work they were established to do; and if we feel that they are not, then through church relations with them we ought to encourage and admonish them; and if they request our help, then we certainly can send our own ministers/members.

The reason I really don't like the term being used in local settings is perhaps more of a pet-peeve. Especially among young people, we often find pastors or youth leaders, etc., telling youths that they are to be missionaries in their schools, or older people that they are to be missionaries in their work places. I honestly don't think this is prudential counsel. This sends youths off into their schools thinking:

1. Simply being a Christian is not enough; I have to be realize that I am a missionary. I have to be more spiritual. Simply living a life of righteousness, of faith and obedience toward God is not enough; I have to be more; I have to have a spiritual office or duty. I notice that this tends to several things:
a. Pride toward those "lower" Christians who have not yet realized these things.
b. Insecurity: once we start down this path it always leads to, "Am I doing enough, or am I doing it good enough." This overspiritualizing of life tends to take our focus off of Christ, and put it onto ourselves.

2. To a youth at school, simply attending school is no longer a noble thing in and of itself. The reason they are at college or high school is so that they can be a missionary there. School itself becomes secondary. Simple human things, or things which pertain to creation are simply no longer good enough. There has to be a spiritual meaning and purpose to everything. Being an engineer is no longer a good in itself -- in fact, it might be looked down upon; however, being a missionary among engineers is good.

I think that both of these lines of thinking are dangerous, and lead people into having to try to be more than they actually are in Christ, and more than they probably are supposed to be.

I realize this has strayed from the OP, but this is my pet-peeve reason why I don't like the use of the term in local settings. My real thoughts are above, but these last reasons certainly make me all for using the term "missionary" in a much more restrictive sense.

 

[Pergamum]

I agree with the sentiment expressed here. People might roll their eyes at this and scoff at such a comparison, but the same thing is often true in heavily urban, rundown areas. Flint, MI, (the former murder capital) is what I have in mind. It is mostly made up of what people call "the hip-hop" culture. It's a different world -- the mentality, the mores, the customs: they're simply different from "us" and it's detrimental to pretend that they're not. And there is one church in the city that has taken this into consideration; I find it sad that more have not.

However, I do tend to not like the term "missionary" being applied to places where the gospel already is established. I think Atlanta has no need of missionaries. Its churches which are already there simply need to do the work they were established to do; and if we feel that they are not, then through church relations with them we ought to encourage and admonish them; and if they request our help, then we certainly can send our own ministers/members.

The reason I really don't like the term being used in local settings is perhaps more of a pet-peeve. Especially among young people, we often find pastors or youth leaders, etc., telling youths that they are to be missionaries in their schools, or older people that they are to be missionaries in their work places. I honestly don't think this is prudential counsel. This sends youths off into their schools thinking:

1. Simply being a Christian is not enough; I have to be realize that I am a missionary. I have to be more spiritual. Simply living a life of righteousness, of faith and obedience toward God is not enough; I have to be more; I have to have a spiritual office or duty. I notice that this tends to several things:
a. Pride toward those "lower" Christians who have not yet realized these things.
b. Insecurity: once we start down this path it always leads to, "Am I doing enough, or am I doing it good enough." This overspiritualizing of life tends to take our focus off of Christ, and put it onto ourselves.

2. To a youth at school, simply attending school is no longer a noble thing in and of itself. The reason they are at college or high school is so that they can be a missionary there. School itself becomes secondary. Simple human things, or things which pertain to creation are simply no longer good enough. There has to be a spiritual meaning and purpose to everything. Being an engineer is no longer a good in itself -- in fact, it might be looked down upon; however, being a missionary among engineers is good.

I think that both of these lines of thinking are dangerous, and lead people into having to try to be more than they actually are in Christ, and more than they probably are supposed to be.

I realize this has strayed from the OP, but this is my pet-peeve reason why I don't like the use of the term in local settings. My real thoughts are above, but these last reasons certainly make me all for using the term "missionary" in a much more restrictive sense.

I agree, that's a way to lose your kids from the Lord instead of gain others for the Lord.

Evangelism usually entails being within the same culture; mission work involves crossing an ethno-linguistic boundary. There are still a fair number of those ethnic boundaries in the States, the biggest being the Spanish community that is largely Catholic.

 

[jwithnell]

The needs in the US are varied depending on where you are. I found a big difference in the west compared to my background in the southeastern US. Here in Virginia, we have a a fair number of reformed congregations in the suburbs of DC, but are making just tiny inroads into the actual city.

 

[Pilgrim]

The United States is easily a mission field. The vast majority of our nation does not trust Christ. That's a mission field to me.

And unlike the past, more and more people are growing up with no exposure to the gospel.

We've batted this subject around at least once before. I'm willing to be convinced by scripture, but I don't know that the idea that some areas should be targeted above others based solely on statistics can be justified by scripture. God has called some to the foreign mission field and others to serve closer to home.

 

[JBaldwin]

The United States is easily a mission field. The vast majority of our nation does not trust Christ. That's a mission field to me.

And unlike the past, more and more people are growing up with no exposure to the gospel. QUOTE]

This is very true. While I happen to live in an area that is gospel saturated, that is not the case elsewhere. Many of the people who move here from other parts of the country, especially the younger ones, know very little if anything of the Gospel.

We face another issue and that is the false Gospel of legalism.

 

[Ivan]

We face another issue and that is the false Gospel of legalism.

Indeed, for it is no Gospel at all.

 

[kvanlaan]

Most missions committees have defined "unreached" as having less than 2% of the population as professing Christian, or if an ethno-linguistic group lacks an indigenous means of reproducing the church.

And if there is this level of profession, should there not also be organic growth? If not, there are larger problems at hand, no? If we are not missionaries, we are mission fields ourselves.

(Also, no idea how the winking smilie got there...)