Why are so many Missionary Organisations compromised?

[Jon 316]

This thread is sparked by my Christian Zionism thread. You may wish to visit it first and check out the link.

However my question is based on the observation that most mission work is humanitarian based rather than evangelistic. If evangelism does exist it is often a 'bolt on' or it exists 'by accident' rather than by aim and agenda.

Any thoughts?

 

[Pergamum]

Can you prove your assertion?

I know many folks who do "good works" but it is all tied into evangelistic aims.Can you dichotomize evangelism from good deeds?

 

[Jon 316]

Can you prove your assertion?

All you need to do is

1) Read some modern books on missiology to see how mission has been redefined.
2) Read the aims and purposes of many missionary organisations (follow the link to the site which which I posted in my Zionism thread, or just read the quote I used from it.
3) Observe how many missionary organisations have redefined their missionary aims/purposes/mission statement of earlier days to accommodate a western humanitarian agenda. Two specific examples would be YMCA and Salvation Army.

I know many folks who do "good works" but it is all tied into evangelistic aims.

I cant speak for the 'folks' you know.

Can you dichotomize evangelism from good deeds?

They are interelated but not the same. They compliment each other but they are different. They are partners but they need to be understood in their own terms. Confusing the two leads to all sorts of problems both in theology and in practice.

Good deeds are just that. Good deeds. They may be carried out for a variety of motives both good and bad.

1) Love for Christ
2) The glory of God
3) Selfish ambition
4) A desire to earn God's approval
5) To be 'seen and honored' by men.
6) Compassion for others

Good deeds may serve the purpose of evangelism by

1) Demonstrating the love of God
2) Demonstrating that faith and deeds go together
3) An act of kindness may move a person to repentance and faith because the truth of God is reinforced and communicated through the good deed.

Good deeds are not evangelism because

Evangelism is the proclamation of the Gospel. The word of Christ. Good deeds accompany it. But they are not the message itself.

If people only do good deeds, and expect their good deeds to communicate the gospel they are mistaken. Why? The gospel needs to be explanied. Faith comes by 'hearing' and hearing by the word of Christ. It is the word of God which leads to repentance and faith.

Many Missionary organisations, it seems, have emphasised good deeds to the exclusion of the gospel. The proclamation of the gospel is not their sole aim. Good deeds are their sole aim.

A lot of assumptions are made these days about missionary activity and gospel proclamation.

I dont think any organisation can afford to make assumptions about its aims and objectives.

 

[Dearly Bought]

I have found the Minority Report of the OPC's Committee on Foreign Missions (1964) to be helpful in regards to this sort of discussion.

 

[Pergamum]

When I think of missions the YMCA and Salvation Army does not come to mind, but I can grant that some groups focus on humanitarian needs.

Also, I know that with the advent of terminology such as "missional" some think that everything that a church does is "missions"...and if every is missions, then really nothing is missions, because a church loses its focus.




However, I am not sure we can dichotomize good deeds or evangelism. We should be doing both, all the time. I think you are pointing out the deviation of some and painting a general picture of Protestant Evangelical missions, when it just isn't the case - the majority are still "Great Commission" oriented orgs that focus on church-planting.


Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

True religion is caring for the widow and the orphan.

Show me even a single day when I can evangelize without caring for physical needs.

 

[Rich Koster]

It seems you have titled everything that calls itself missions as missions. A true mission always has the Gospel as it's core and driving force. The reason there are so many backward looking mission organizations is they come out of backward groups that call themselves "Church" but are really an empty shell that resemble a Church.

 

[Jon 316]

When I think of missions the YMCA and Salvation Army does not come to mind, but I can grant that some groups focus on humanitarian needs.

Also, I know that with the advent of terminology such as "missional" some think that everything that a church does is "missions"...and if every is missions, then really nothing is missions, because a church loses its focus.




However, I am not sure we can dichotomize good deeds or evangelism. We should be doing both, all the time. I think you are pointing out the deviation of some and painting a general picture of Protestant Evangelical missions, when it just isn't the case - the majority are still "Great Commission" oriented orgs that focus on church-planting.


Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

True religion is caring for the widow and the orphan.

Show me even a single day when I can evangelize without caring for physical needs.

I dont really think you have engaged with my response...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I find the cause in two related loci:

1) divorce of "mission work" from under the explicit government of the church.

2) No insistence upon theological training and vetting for missionaries, and no priority given to the sending of ordained servants.​

The CHURCH should be sending PASTORS to found a CHURCH. If the hospital--or the charity work, or the building program--comes first, or is even conceived as belonging to the first-order of labors, then it is bound to take a "share" of the cuts when cutting time comes, or even to be valued too highly for its pragmatic utility.

When, in fact, if cutting must come then it should be the gospel ministry that is fully funded first, and the last to be curtailed. Whatever is left over should be divided among the other aspects of ministry.

 

[Pergamum]

Missions work is not merely white pastors pastoring churches of brown people on foreign soil.
Missions work is also training foreign pastors to lead themselves, even when that missionary is not acting in a pastor role to a local congregation. Missions work is different from pastoring.



Also, most orgs have quite an extensive screening process. Often, at least half of candidates are not accepted even at the final stages of candidate school, etc.

Usually there is a priority given to ordained elder qualified men. However, the Apostle Paul had many among his sunergois and some of those were women. Most evangelical missions orgs recognize that not only ordained elder qualified men can be of service, but others can serve as well, teaching women and children and engaging in a number of support roles. I am not offended in the least that pilots and literacy workers are also called missioanaries, because they work in conjunction with the ordained elder-qualified men to plant the church.

As far as being under the direct control of a local church, the apostle Paul in Acts was not, and neither were his fellow-laborours. They were sent by local churches, and reported back to local churches. But on the field they made semi-autonomous decisions and worked in teams, recruited others and made their own travel decisions apart from Antioch or whatever other churches sent them. Therefore, by necessity, a missionary is "divorced" to some extent from the gov't of the local church from whence he was sent.



About filling humanitarian needs: A great part of mission work is filling humanitarian needs as one goes about their work. To speak of priority means to dichotomize the issue.

Name one Protestant evangelical mission board that overly stresses humanitarian work to the exclusion of the Gospel. Maybe a few liberal reformed groups might, but most all protestant evangelical mission boards are "Great Commission centered" and do good works on their way, as they are engaged in evangelism.

 

[feunekes]

Jon

The problem is that every Christian whom "goes out" now a days is called a missionary. In our church federation we make a distinction between "mission" or missionary those whom are called by a church to go and spread the gospel, and "mission aid" those who assist in the missionary.

Now I like to add to pergamum comment, that now a days the actual "mission" work is less and less. A lot of places have been reached, but now need a continuing of teaching. Just like Paul wrote his letters.

That doesn't mean that "mission aid" work isn't important. Many org. are in places, where evangelism is prohibited, where they do "good" but at the same time have a christian influence. Also the mission aid worker assists and supports the new local churches.

Lets not lose the focus of no matter where you are you recieved the command of bringing the good news. Now starting a church or congregation I think should be done by either a ordained minister or under direct supervision of a church.

HWF

 

[Pergamum]

Some of my supporters disinguish between Missionaries and missionaries, those who are ordained church planters (which we need more of) and those who serve non-ordained roles, whatever they may be. I see no need to deny someone the name "missionary" because they are not directly planting a church. Plus, how does one plant a church anyway? Often here, it is through linguistics and literacy works so that local leaders can actually understand the Gospel rather than going through the rituals.

In Acts, we have Paul associating with his "fellow-laborours" and are called sunergois and all share in the work of advancing the Gospel. Paul worked with women and men (i.e. unordained folks too) and these were all important in the work.

These "co-workers" came out of local churches but, once on the field, they made semi-autonomous decisions and did not work DIRECTLY underneath the gov't of their local sending church, but they worked far away with the tacit approval and oversight of their churches, in order to plant more churches and have flexibility in making local and field-governed decisions.


Feunekes makes a good point about closed countries"....what are we to call tent-makers and those who use good works as a platform to enter a resistant area and as a means of gaining a visa? Are they any less missionary for this?

 

[Jon 316]

Pergamum,

I think you may be approaching the question somewhat defensively due to your own commitments?

My question does not imply

1 All missionaries have compromised the gospel
2 There is a 'dichotomy' between gospel work and good deeds (I argue for for interelation and distinction.

Bruce indicated in his response that he is aware of what I am getting at. That is, that many mission organisations have compromised the great commision as their core aim.

My post is not an attack at missionaries per se

 

[TimV]

In Acts, we have Paul associating with his "fellow-laborours" and are called sunergois and all share in the work of advancing the Gospel. Paul worked with women and men (i.e. unordained folks too) and these were all important in the work.

At the risk of being presumptious I think at least part of Pastor B's point is that there's no difference between the above situation and that of the local church here in the US. We all should be doing what you describe here in SLO county CA.

 

[Pergamum]

TImV: Yes, we should be working hard wherever the Lord has us. Thatis agreed.

 

[Wannabee]

Perhaps some of the tension is the way in which many churches get involved in missions today. A young man and his newly wedded wife go on a trip and are convinced that this is where God would have them spend their lives. They've helped in Sunday school and vacation Bible school and are well liked. The church gets excited. They're "commissioned," perhaps given training, and sent out. He has no experience as an elder, but now he's the "expert" in a foreign field. She might have had some instruction, but is now to train the older women on how to train the younger women to love their husbands, etc.
While there is value in sending the young to the mission field because of their energy and physical prowess, there is a problem inherent in this if they do not have good oversight. For this reason, churches should consider sending out their best, rather than their novices. Wayne Mack is an excellent example. He's served for many years and now is offering his experience in Africa. What an incredible asset to a people who might not otherwise have the blessing of his experience and knowledge.
Another aspect of this is that sending agencies become the authority, rather than the local church, and can lose accountability. They become the "experts" to the exclusion of the local church, rather than being an arm of the local church. This is not always the case, but is clearly represented in some situations. This is a problem inherent in para-church organizations with no accountability to the local church. They become entities in and of themselves and build their own empire. I will not name groups, but became very aware of this a couple of years ago as we explored a certain opportunity to serve.

 

[Pergamum]

Missionary orgs ARE the experts. Most local churches know next to nothing about crossing cultures and learning languages and arranging visas. Thus, missionary societies step into a role to serve the church. We shouldn't grieve about this. Most do a good job of working beside the church and serving the church, rather than either working on their own or trying to dictate to the churches. The leadership of my org is drawn from the pastors of churches who have sent my org its missionaries - therefore, the sending (local) churches continue to have representation in all org decisions.


I do agree about sending the best.
However, younger folks adapt linguistically twice as fast.

Also, I would hate for a church to require its young people a "training period" of 5 to 10 years in the name of "experience" the US before they are sent out... I know one church that requires 3 years training in the local context before the church body will even consider sending its men out as missionaries...yet, this church requires no cultural or linguistic training at all. This is not a balanced approach and this just trains someone better to serve an American church and less able to serve a non-Western church in my opinion.


Finally, one need not be an elder to serve in missions. Yes, we need ordained elder-qualified men to plant churches. But we also need single women, literacy workers, linguists, Bible teachers, etc.

 

[Wannabee]

I'm certainly not in disagreement with your perspective Pergy. I think it complements my own. They are experts, and should be utilized by churches. They should also be in direct oversight of churches. Perhaps this is where much of the problem either lies, or eventually develops. Without oversight they become entities in their own right, and make all the rules. I'm oversimplifying, but it is a real and present danger.

As for who gets sent out, I agree as well - it depends upon what capacity. Much of the problem though, is sending out a young couple who has never served in leadership and making him THE guy in the field. This youngster needs oversight as well. Timothy wasn't sent out on his own until he had worked with Paul for a while. The first line should be someone whose ecclesiology is both clearly defined and experienced, so that his knowledge and confidence in the body of Christ is deeply rooted. His associates and fellow workers, on the other hand, may be varied. Does that line up with what you're stating?

 

[Pergamum]

Thanks Joe, I think we agree.

I just recoil sometimes by the phrase "direct oversight" because Paul chose Timothy on his own it seems without asking permission from Antioch. The fellow-workers in Acts seemed to make semi-autonomous decisions on the field without consultation of their home churches.

There is an oversight, that is true, but there is also a freedom given to missionaries (and there needs to be) so that decisions are largely field-based and your poor jungle missionary is not governed by a board of deacons 1,000 miles away sitting in an A/C'd office with their suits and ties and midwestern ideals, making decisions about ministry in a jungle and tribal setting.

Maybe we could open a new thread and explore the assumption that missionaries ought to be "under" "direct oversight" of "a" local church. There are a number of assumptions in place I believe. I am all for accountability and oversight, but not for a field missionary deferring all decisions to folks who do not know the language or the culture.

-----Added 3/3/2009 at 09:20:59 EST-----

http://http://www.ijfm.org/archives.htm

THese are the archives for IJFM, the International Journal of Frontier Missions.

Go to volumes 18:2 and 18:3 about "field-governed missions." This will help you to understand what I mean by "oversight" even while missionaries are free to amke their own decisions on the field.

 

[Wannabee]

Okay, I think I see your point. Perhaps this is an issue of delegation. The church overseeing the mission agency keeps them in line doctrinally. But, they also rely on the expertise of those involved to do what they do best. As for Paul, comparing anything to Paul breaks down. He's an apostle. Who else has those credentials? However, even so, he served in the church 15+ years before doing mission work. And, again, he didn't send Timothy out right away, but only after he had worked with him for at least some time. Even when he told Timothy to not let them despise his youth, Timothy was in his late 30s.
If a church sends a man they know understands Scripture well, has a good understanding of the church and is solid, then they can trust him to make the right decisions. But I will stand on the principle that the man leading in the mission field should not be sent if he's not qualified to be an elder in the local sending church. And that's often a problem. But, as for his support, interns, etc., whoever's best or willing, dependent upon resources and the oversight of the local missionary, I suppose. That really wasn't my focus. And, yes, I would also call them missionaries.

 

[Pergamum]

AMEN!!!!


To all points, except your assertion that EVERY PERSON going on the mission field needs to be elder-qualified. This would automatically rule out 70% of the mission force....women.

 

[calgal]

AMEN!!!!


To all points, except your assertion that EVERY PERSON going on the mission field needs to be elder-qualified. This would automatically rule out 70% of the mission force....women.

And does it require one to be an elder to translate the Bible into the indigenous languages, to heal the sick or to teach children and adults to read and write? These all fall under the heading of missions.

 

[Wannabee]

AMEN!!!!


To all points, except your assertion that EVERY PERSON going on the mission field needs to be elder-qualified. This would automatically rule out 70% of the mission force....women.

Actually, we do agree. Somehow you missed what I said.

If a church sends a man they know understands Scripture well, has a good understanding of the church and is solid, then they can trust him to make the right decisions. But I will stand on the principle that the man leading in the mission field should not be sent if he's not qualified to be an elder in the local sending church. And that's often a problem. But, as for his support, interns, etc., whoever's best or willing, dependent upon resources and the oversight of the local missionary, I suppose. That really wasn't my focus. And, yes, I would also call them missionaries.