JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
If you stop preaching the gospel here, you won't have any missionaries to send abroad in 20-25 years. Why does it have to be one versus the other?
Pastor Salary (Baptist Edition)
- Thread starter LongWar
- Start date
- Status
If you stop preaching the gospel here, you won't have any missionaries to send abroad in 20-25 years. Why does it have to be one versus the other?
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Until He comes, “All the World Needs All the Gospel Always.” Let this be our rule.
There is a very unequal distribution of gospel ministers throughout the whole world. If a normal American city has 40 churches and even if only 20 are true churches, that is still more than entire regions overseas. If all the world needs the Gospel, we are doing a poor job if we keep the vast majority of these resources to ourselves and then act as if these are not enough while the rest of the world starves.
Imagine two kinds of starving people: (1) A truly starving person who would trek for hours for a piece of bread, and (2) An Anorexic who starves even though bread is within reach.
Americans are spiritual anorexics.
With person would you like to give bread to?
Imagine two kinds of starving people: (1) A truly starving person who would trek for hours for a piece of bread, and (2) An Anorexic who starves even though bread is within reach.
Americans are spiritual anorexics.
With person would you like to give bread to?
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
You talk about it like it's something that we all got together and decided on. I guess I missed that meeting. Brother, Christ's Kingdom in this world is completely decentralized. And I think that's a good thing. There are a host of circumstances and factors underlying the current distribution of Christian churches, pastors, evangelists, and missionaries. Playing the blame game on such a complicated issue is naive. Accusing all Western Christians and churches of just being uncaring and stingy is as unkind as it is unhelpful.
Last edited:
You don't have to get together and decide to do the easiest option. It only takes planning and intention to send some folks to the unreached in India or Sumatra or the Middle East.
Hard things just don't get done by themselves. Unless there is intentional drive, people end up graduating seminary and pastoring in the same state or town or region, not working among the Kurds or Pashtuns.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
And I am immensely grateful for all of the hard things I see churches doing to bring the gospel to these parts of the world. Do I desire it to be greater? Of course. But I am also grateful for the men who go to seminary and spend their lives laboring in the state or town they grew up in. Thinking about that as being any less noble and God-honoring as service in a foreign country is wrong.
One cannot help but see 40 churches in a small US city, and then NONE in a circumference of 3 day's walk overseas, and not regret it at least a little.
SPREAD THE WEALTH! If our domain is the whole world, why is 90% of the wealth and training limited to one or two regions?
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
Pergster,
I think this is a very delicate and also a pretty complicated issue. Your desire to see the nations reached is fantastic. I think you should do your best to word it in the most helpful way possible, realizing that things could be taken the wrong way (IE, so are you saying I'm not following God's call for my life just because God happened to call me to minister in the States?) I don't think you're saying that, am I right? But it could come off that way.
I think this is a very delicate and also a pretty complicated issue. Your desire to see the nations reached is fantastic. I think you should do your best to word it in the most helpful way possible, realizing that things could be taken the wrong way (IE, so are you saying I'm not following God's call for my life just because God happened to call me to minister in the States?) I don't think you're saying that, am I right? But it could come off that way.
The Church as a whole is to have the mind of Christ. If the stated will of Christ (right before he ascended) was to go into all the nations with the Gospel, and we are not doing it, then we don't really have the mind of Christ.
Sure, God will call many if not most men to stay in their own countries. But I wonder if this is really a call or just staying by default. Most seminaries DON'T really train people to become missionaries or really persuade them well to consider it as a possibility. Put plainly, most seminaries and bible schools are focused on producing US pastors with little thought of missions. This is a problem among the Reformed.
If the pastor is young and healthy and can go to a more unreached area, then why not?
And of the few who want to go out, many of those cannot get adequate support. I know an OPC guy right now who is subsisting on 1/4th of his needed support in a very hard field and will have to return stateside to find new support, and he's been on the field for more than 2 decades doing good work.
There are about 350,000 evangelical churches in the US alone. There are about 7,000 people groups that are unreached. If every evangelical church sent ONE missionary, there'd be 50 missionaries per unreached missionary group just from the US. Other countries are also now sending out missionaries.
BUT...we just aren't sending. Almost EVERYBODY is "Called" to stay in the US. How strange.
This recent study shows that 51% of church-goers don't even know about the Great Commission: https://www.barna.com/research/half-churchgoers-not-heard-great-commission/ That might have something to do with the poor showing. We just don't prioritize missions.
BUT...we just aren't sending. Almost EVERYBODY is "Called" to stay in the US. How strange.
This recent study shows that 51% of church-goers don't even know about the Great Commission: https://www.barna.com/research/half-churchgoers-not-heard-great-commission/ That might have something to do with the poor showing. We just don't prioritize missions.
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
Can I push back a bit?
First, the US was one of the "distant nations" when Jesus gave the Great Commission. The Great Commission isn't: "Leave your home country to go to another country." It's "Go to all nations." The US is one of those nations.
You questioned the calling of those laboring in the States. Can I do the same? What if God's calling YOU to a MORE unreached place? How do I know YOU'RE not just staying by default? I wonder if you are. Aren't there more tribes more unreached than yours? What's up with the comfort issues/laziness? Why do you continue to just stay in your tribe where you're comfortable and know the language now? Seems to me it's time to move on to a less reached place.
Pergster, I believe in the need. Note: I am a "Christian Worker" working in the largest UPG in the world. I don't presume that means God is calling my friends in the States to do the same thing. Maybe He's not. Is there a great need in many places? Yes. Does that also include the US? Is there a deep growing need for gospel ministry in the US as our culture radically changes? Yes. Is there more of a need in other places? Probably. Does that mean I should hold my missionary status with a somewhat haughty condescending tone and talk like I know everyone's motives and most of them are disobeying God? No.
Last edited:
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
The exhortation to "have this mind in you which was also in Christ" (Phil. 2:5) was given to encourage the persecuted Philippian church. They were to see their own suffering in immediate connection with Christ's suffering. Does the text have implications missions and evangelism? Of course. But equating having the mind of Christ with becoming a foreign missionary is a potentially harmful misreading of the text.
If the mosquitos in this tribe don't kill me, I'm willing to go someplace else.
There is no haughty condescension. Don't pretend to be the tone police. Many missionaries also have bad motives. It's cheaper to live in SE Asia, after all.
My conviction is that Reformed churches in the US are not doing all they can to send missionaries. I can send you the syllabi of several Reformed seminaries that virtually teach nothing on missions. In life we do things we are serious about. Folks start businesses. They train and get black belts. They mobilize countries and win wars when it matters to them. And we'll send missionaries and support our US pastors...if it matters to us.
Listen, there is no denying that Western culture (and the Western church) lacks seriousness when it comes to the task of the Gospel. Either at home...or abroad.
What were Christ's last orders to the Church? Nobody is saying every single Christian must become a missionary. But having the mind of Christ means the Church as a whole has the mind of Christ. His priorities must be our priorities (in the corporate sense). Therefore, we'd expect a fair amount of ordained servants NOT to live in the same state and region as they were ordained.
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
I'm assuming that's the exact answer the great majority of those laboring in the States would give about missions. And I don't see it as a wrong answer.
Why don't they go then?
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
Why don't YOU go? To somewhere MORE unreached? If you're willing?
It'd be nice if the native believers could actually read the bible first. Only a few can read well. We tried to go to the neediest place we could find.
What are the metrics of leaving? How do you define reached? I have discussed the next steps with my wife and India or Turkey or the Middle East has come up. Or another tribe further south.
But surely you see that the USA is a difference of KIND and not a difference of DEGREE when it comes to the metrics of being reached. A few poorly clad illiterate tribal believers and folks taking communion who have eaten human flesh in the past versus an unbelieving guy passing 3 baptist churches every morning on his way to work in the US is not the same. One has access and availability. The other does not. One is a spiritual anorexic; the other is truly starving due to lack of bread.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
You've missed the point entirely.
There are a so many holes in your logic it makes carrying on this discussion difficult. Most of your broad conclusions rest on very slender premises. I love you sincerely and am thankful for your zeal for Christ's Kingdom. But I think you are overly confident in your understanding of the matter. You are unnecessarily critical of others' motives (of which you have no real knowledge) and too dismissive of those urging you to be more careful in your speech.
I've said nothing of other people's motives. I am looking at the results. We have lots of churches and lots of money, but few missionaries.
Perhaps you think you master this subject more than you actually do.
It is not arrogant to prioritize need.
It is a healthy discussion. If you had 1,000 seminary graduates healthy and ready to go anywhere, it'd be foolish to send them all to Atlanta Georgia. Sure, people are gonna scream that Atlanta, Georgia's got needs, too, and a soul in Atlanta, Georgia is just as precious as a soul in Thailand. BUT, I would have to grieve if 1,000 graduates went to Atlanta and not a single one went to Thailand. How many Christian radio stations, how many churches, how many bible schools,, how many fellow Christians, are within a mile of you in Atlanta? How many among groups such as the Northern Thai?
So yes, I think there needs to be a "triage" of graduates. We should encourage them to go out if they can and if they are willing. If they state that they are "called" to stay home...well then, who can argue with that.
Here is a map for you: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-...eGhReQ27A1LW8FdzTGmwsxkfbQr6igVMzW4MQwKrPyMpM
The Joshua Project classifies > 10% Evangelicals as "Significantly reached," between 2-10% as "Partially reached," and less than 2% in various categories of unreached, with more than half of the world population of the world living in the < 2%.
Well, the map shows the percentage of Evangelical Protestants in the U.S. by state, data from Pew Research Forum. It ranges from 52% in Tennessee to 7% in Utah.
So there are metrics of needs. There are objective standards by which to judge priorities. There are numerical indicators to give us (albeit an imperfect) picture of where we should be concentrating our troops.
I think we ought to prioritize need. Our money and our energy goes towards our priorities. In the West many pastors are bi-vocational and the number of overseas missionaries decreases each year. This shows the priorities of the West. There is no arrogance to say our priorities (and even the priorities of churches) are wrong. We are luke-warm at best. I suppose it could be said that churches are not sending missionaries overseas because they are battling abortion in the US, but not really....only a few US churches are even doing that.
I just talked to a brother heading to Europe where the rate of evangelical or Reformed Churches is less than 2%. Good on him. More men could and should do that, I think. That is not arrogance, but the facts. We should spread ourselves out so that nobody is too far out of earshot of the Gospel.
Last edited:
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
But you have.
Assigned Motive: Missions doesn't matter to us.
Assigned Motive: Missions is not a priority.
Painting with such broad brushstrokes is untrue, unhelpful, and unkind.
Forget about motive, we can tell priorities by budgets and numbers and time spent. I have no idea about the motives, but the numbers and budgets tell me a definite story, as well as seminary syllabi and sermon topics.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
I will if you'll stop assigning them.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
I can't think of a major evangelical seminary without a missions program. The six Southern Baptist seminaries all have them and talk about virtually nothing else. Growing up in the SBC, missions and evangelism were always the most important thing. And that's still true today. And I think it's true for most evangelical churches. Of the three Reformed Baptist seminaries that I know of (one of which I am a board member) a considerable amount of time and energy is put into foreign programs. I've been around evangelicalism a long time. I have my criticisms of their theology and practice of missions. But I can't say I have ever encountered an apathetic attitude towards missions. So I just don't know what you're talking about.
Last edited:
Back to the OP:
The distraction started when I expressed reservations about America being called a mission field. Well...okay...but there are over 300,00 churches in the USA. That is 6,000 per State if divided equally. Call it what you want, I guess. I've yet to drive more than an hour or two in the US without some access to the gospel. Even a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room drawer is more than some whole tribes have.
David (Longwar) stated in the OP, "but I cannot see how we as American Baptists will be able to one day stand before God and justify spending so much on ourselves..." This part I agree with. We don't prioritize our funds for the kingdom of God largely in America. We give out of our excess mostly.
But then David seems to push for bivocational pastors as the answer (more elders splitting the work as a service instead of a paid job). It is there that I disagree.
I believe the better answer is to try to get these bi-vocational guys supported full-time so they can focus on their full-time calling full-time and not have to work. We should normally expect to see one man preaching most of the time. I've attended a church with 4 elders in rotation every week and there is no continuity (and no true equality in gifting, one man was the gifted preacher while the others were elders). The preacher should have been supported so he could have focused on preaching. Instead, all the guys had to work and they preached every 4th week on a different topic.
I think that US churches have enough money to support their pastors well and also send more foreign missionaries.
The distraction started when I expressed reservations about America being called a mission field. Well...okay...but there are over 300,00 churches in the USA. That is 6,000 per State if divided equally. Call it what you want, I guess. I've yet to drive more than an hour or two in the US without some access to the gospel. Even a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room drawer is more than some whole tribes have.
David (Longwar) stated in the OP, "but I cannot see how we as American Baptists will be able to one day stand before God and justify spending so much on ourselves..." This part I agree with. We don't prioritize our funds for the kingdom of God largely in America. We give out of our excess mostly.
But then David seems to push for bivocational pastors as the answer (more elders splitting the work as a service instead of a paid job). It is there that I disagree.
I believe the better answer is to try to get these bi-vocational guys supported full-time so they can focus on their full-time calling full-time and not have to work. We should normally expect to see one man preaching most of the time. I've attended a church with 4 elders in rotation every week and there is no continuity (and no true equality in gifting, one man was the gifted preacher while the others were elders). The preacher should have been supported so he could have focused on preaching. Instead, all the guys had to work and they preached every 4th week on a different topic.
I think that US churches have enough money to support their pastors well and also send more foreign missionaries.
Concerning seminaries and mission programs:
Here is what I have gathered. The Baptist ones generally do better.
"The top ten largest evangelical/reformed seminaries (by number of full-time equivalent students) all have missions programs: Liberty, SBTS, SWBTS, SEBTS, Fuller, Asbury, MBTS, Dallas, NOBTS, GCTS. This shouldn't be a surprise -- larger schools have more resources.
#11 is Regent University, which does not, the next four are TIU/TEDS, Biola/Talbot, RTS, and Gateway Baptist (formerly Golden Gate), which all have missions programs. #16 is Westminster Philly, which used to have a missions program, but does not have one anymore."
To the best of my knowledge, "none of the Reformed seminaries have a mission program anymore. It looks like RTS still has one resident mission faculty member in Jackson, but dropped their mission program. Covenant Seminary lost their resident faculty member. Greenville Presbyterian has one missions residential faculty member. PRTS, RPTS, MARS, Knox, Erskine, New Geneva have none.
...despite not having a missions program per se, Covenant Seminary was known for a while as a seminary with a strong missions ethos."
I hope the stats has changed above since the last time I checked. It could be possible also that a "missionary ethos" is included in every class rather than having a separate missions track or course.
I've also read that most of US missions pastors have no long-term missionary experience, but I can't find the statistics (a mission professor told us this in class).
Sorry for the distraction...back to the OP now..
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
It's a valid point for sure, Pergster. Sorry for getting off my rocker a bit. I apologize. Appreciate you.
Same here, brother. I understand what you are getting at and they are valid points. God bless.
Reformed Apologist
Puritan Board Freshman
It is my firm conviction, that salary for full time church staff and pastors be equal to the median family income of their particular congregation. I would also award pastors an additional 10%, based on the difficulty of their calling. Additionally, all full time pastors should be paid equally. I do not believe in awarding the senior pastor a higher salary.
I believe pastors should live in the area they serve and among the people they serve. Pastors should not be broke, neither should they be living at levels far above the typical family in the congregation they serve. If 90% percent of your congregation drives a Focus and lives in a lower income area, you should probably drive a similar vehicle and live in a similar area. Unfortunately, I have seen a few pastors pull up in an escalade ( or similar) when the lot is full of compact cars. Even if the pastor can afford it, you have to be aware of the message you might be sending.
I believe pastors should live in the area they serve and among the people they serve. Pastors should not be broke, neither should they be living at levels far above the typical family in the congregation they serve. If 90% percent of your congregation drives a Focus and lives in a lower income area, you should probably drive a similar vehicle and live in a similar area. Unfortunately, I have seen a few pastors pull up in an escalade ( or similar) when the lot is full of compact cars. Even if the pastor can afford it, you have to be aware of the message you might be sending.
Last edited:
- Status
