Why Every Believer Is A Missionary

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

In the post below, church-planter and pastor, Matt Troupe, argues that at one level every believer is a missionary. Matt's article is brief, but his argument is, I think, cogent. We need to inculcate within our people a missional perspective with respect to their own calling in the world. I'd encourage you to read Matt's brief post.

Why Every Believer Is A Missionary

Your servant,

 

[Iconoclast]

In the post below, church-planter and pastor, Matt Troupe, argues that at one level every believer is a missionary. Matt's article is brief, but his argument is, I think, cogent. We need to inculcate within our people a missional perspective with respect to their own calling in the world. I'd encourage you to read Matt's brief post.

Why Every Believer Is A Missionary

Your servant,

Some might have trouble with this in that they might have seen some poor attempts to evangelize go in a really poor direction.
Others believe it is only the pastoral ministry of elders who are called to do this work.
In any case those who speak to others about their soul's condition should remain accountable to the oversight of a local church. It should not be an either /or, proposition.
Going to a hospital or nursing home, speaking with co-workers, or praying about each and every random contact we have should be done with a view to God's glory in the salvation , or damnation of those souls we speak with.
2Cor 2-3

14Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

15For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

16To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

17For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

2 Corinthians 3
1Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

10For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

18But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

 

[Pergamum]

I would rather say that every believer is a "Witness" and keep the term "missionary" for those that are sent by churches in order to deliberately cross ethno-linguistic boundaries with the Gospel.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

I would rather say that every believer is a "Witness" and keep the term "missionary" for those that are sent by churches in order to deliberately cross ethno-linguistic boundaries with the Gospel.

Perg,

I think we need to be careful that we're not more fastidious in our use of terminology than the Bible itself. For example, I've heard many on this board object to the application of the term "evangelism" to lay-activity and suggest that we use instead the term "witness." This concern is apparently born out of the conviction that "evangelism" is the function of the ordained man while "witnessing" is a function that applies to all believers.

In point of fact, the term "witness" in the NT, particularly in John's writings, is more often a technical expression employed to denote the official witness that

(1) the OT Scripture writers bore of Christ (5:39), that John the Baptist bore of Christ (1:15, 32, 34; 3:26; 5:33),
(2) that Jesus bore of himself and the truth (1:8; 3:11; 3:32; 4:44; 5:31, 36; 7:7; 8:13-14, 18; 10:25; 18:37),
(3) that the Father bore of Christ (5:32, 37; 8:18), that the Spirit would bear of Christ (15:26), and
(4) that Christ’s chosen apostles were to bear of him (1:34; 15:27; 19:35; 21:24).
​

If there were ever a role that might be too lofty for laypeople, it would be “bearing witness”! Of course, the apostle John wasn’t so penurious with his vocabulary as some clericalists today. He was willing to describe a crowd of people flocking to Jesus on the basis of a Samaritan woman’s “testimony [marturouses]” (4:39). And John will use the Greek noun martus to designate those “martyrs,” whether clergy or laity, who seal their verbal testimony with their own blood (Rev. 17:6).

Similarly, Mark could employ the Greek verb Paul used for “preaching” (kerusso) to describe, on the one hand, Jesus’ official proclamation of the gospel (Mark 1:14) and, on the other hand, the enthusiastic testimonies of a leper now healed, a demoniac now freed, and a deaf-dumb man now hearing and speaking (Mark 1:45; 5:20; 7:32). If the Scripture writers could use gospel vocabulary to predicate both clerical and non-clerical activity, why can’t we?

Indeed, the word "apostle," which is the equivalent to the Latin "missionary," is used to designate non-office bearers in 2 Corinthians 8:22-23. For this reason, I think we have precedent to distinguish between different kinds of "apostles" or "missionaries." And since the responsibility of the Great Commission devolves on every member of the church in some way and to some degree, I see nothing wrong with describing all of Christ's disciples as "missionaries" at some level though I also acknowledge the usage of that term to describe someone officially ordained and sent by the church to plant churches.

Your servant,

 

[Knoxienne]

A missionary is one who is "sent". We are "sent" because we get our marching orders from King Christ, the One who sends us. So, whether he sends us next door or around the world, we are all sent, to teach as we go and give the gospel.

 

[dr_parsley]

In the post below, church-planter and pastor, Matt Troupe, argues that at one level every believer is a missionary.

I'm surprised it's not blatantly obvious! Are we soldiers of God forever in training in the barracks or are we given a mission to perform? That "mission" may not be an exact identification of what is thought of as a "missionaries" task, but whatever that mission is, or those missions are, we are missionaries. If overseas missionaries want a word all to themselves, they should make one up and not impoverish the language by disallowing the use of this one.

I would also say that every believer has a vocation in the Lord, even if it's a second job.

 

[Pergamum]

In the post below, church-planter and pastor, Matt Troupe, argues that at one level every believer is a missionary.

I'm surprised it's not blatantly obvious! Are we soldiers of God forever in training in the barracks or are we given a mission to perform? That "mission" may not be an exact identification of what is thought of as a "missionaries" task, but whatever that mission is, or those missions are, we are missionaries. If overseas missionaries want a word all to themselves, they should make one up and not impoverish the language by disallowing the use of this one.

I would also say that every believer has a vocation in the Lord, even if it's a second job.

It is not that we need a word all to ourselves, but if everything becomes "missions" and everyone becomes a "missionary" than nothing really becomes missions....

Those that are using the word "missions" for everything that the church does (social justice, arts, etc) are actually the ones impoverishing language and blurring the great urgency of intentional, deliberate and cross-cultural witness.


I do wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Bob that we do need to stress the duties and privileges of all believers to bear witness to Christ and I do not want to object to strongly to any terminology that serves to mobilize the laymen. We are all witnesses, so let us light up the world.

-----Added 8/5/2009 at 02:00:21 EST-----

I would rather say that every believer is a "Witness" and keep the term "missionary" for those that are sent by churches in order to deliberately cross ethno-linguistic boundaries with the Gospel.

Perg,

I think we need to be careful that we're not more fastidious in our use of terminology than the Bible itself. For example, I've heard many on this board object to the application of the term "evangelism" to lay-activity and suggest that we use instead the term "witness." This concern is apparently born out of the conviction that "evangelism" is the function of the ordained man while "witnessing" is a function that applies to all believers.

In point of fact, the term "witness" in the NT, particularly in John's writings, is more often a technical expression employed to denote the official witness that

(1) the OT Scripture writers bore of Christ (5:39), that John the Baptist bore of Christ (1:15, 32, 34; 3:26; 5:33),
(2) that Jesus bore of himself and the truth (1:8; 3:11; 3:32; 4:44; 5:31, 36; 7:7; 8:13-14, 18; 10:25; 18:37),
(3) that the Father bore of Christ (5:32, 37; 8:18), that the Spirit would bear of Christ (15:26), and
(4) that Christ’s chosen apostles were to bear of him (1:34; 15:27; 19:35; 21:24).
​

If there were ever a role that might be too lofty for laypeople, it would be “bearing witness”! Of course, the apostle John wasn’t so penurious with his vocabulary as some clericalists today. He was willing to describe a crowd of people flocking to Jesus on the basis of a Samaritan woman’s “testimony [marturouses]” (4:39). And John will use the Greek noun martus to designate those “martyrs,” whether clergy or laity, who seal their verbal testimony with their own blood (Rev. 17:6).

Similarly, Mark could employ the Greek verb Paul used for “preaching” (kerusso) to describe, on the one hand, Jesus’ official proclamation of the gospel (Mark 1:14) and, on the other hand, the enthusiastic testimonies of a leper now healed, a demoniac now freed, and a deaf-dumb man now hearing and speaking (Mark 1:45; 5:20; 7:32). If the Scripture writers could use gospel vocabulary to predicate both clerical and non-clerical activity, why can’t we?

Indeed, the word "apostle," which is the equivalent to the Latin "missionary," is used to designate non-office bearers in 2 Corinthians 8:22-23. For this reason, I think we have precedent to distinguish between different kinds of "apostles" or "missionaries." And since the responsibility of the Great Commission devolves on every member of the church in some way and to some degree, I see nothing wrong with describing all of Christ's disciples as "missionaries" at some level though I also acknowledge the usage of that term to describe someone officially ordained and sent by the church to plant churches.

Your servant,

Dr Bob;


If we translate kerusso as "preaching", would you advocate then that preaching is much broader than merely what occurs in the pulpit by the official ecclesiastical authority of a church, i.e. laymen can "preach" and even women can "preach" if we are all to be missionaries who engage in "preaching" kerusso? If all are sent and all are missionaries, who can preach, give the sacraments, and plant churches?

 

[dr_parsley]

In the post below, church-planter and pastor, Matt Troupe, argues that at one level every believer is a missionary.

I'm surprised it's not blatantly obvious! Are we soldiers of God forever in training in the barracks or are we given a mission to perform? That "mission" may not be an exact identification of what is thought of as a "missionaries" task, but whatever that mission is, or those missions are, we are missionaries. If overseas missionaries want a word all to themselves, they should make one up and not impoverish the language by disallowing the use of this one.

I would also say that every believer has a vocation in the Lord, even if it's a second job.

It is not that we need a word all to ourselves, but if everything becomes "missions" and everyone becomes a "missionary" than nothing really becomes missions....

Those that are using the word "missions" for everything that the church does (social justice, arts, etc) are actually the ones impoverishing language and blurring the great urgency of intentional, deliberate and cross-cultural witness.

Oh yes, I fully agree with you there. I think the compartmentalisation is a problem in itself. Our vocation and mission ought to saturate the whole of our lives and not be associated with a particular activity. It's about everyone being aware of their calling, not about finding something for each person to call "ministry" or "mission". There shouldn't be "I'm a missionary because I do X" or "My ministry is Y" because one shouldn't be able to identify in ones dealings with the church and the world what is mission and what isn't if the whole life is mission and ministry and witness.

 

[Pergamum]

I'm surprised it's not blatantly obvious! Are we soldiers of God forever in training in the barracks or are we given a mission to perform? That "mission" may not be an exact identification of what is thought of as a "missionaries" task, but whatever that mission is, or those missions are, we are missionaries. If overseas missionaries want a word all to themselves, they should make one up and not impoverish the language by disallowing the use of this one.

I would also say that every believer has a vocation in the Lord, even if it's a second job.

It is not that we need a word all to ourselves, but if everything becomes "missions" and everyone becomes a "missionary" than nothing really becomes missions....

Those that are using the word "missions" for everything that the church does (social justice, arts, etc) are actually the ones impoverishing language and blurring the great urgency of intentional, deliberate and cross-cultural witness.

Oh yes, I fully agree with you there. I think the compartmentalisation is a problem in itself. Our vocation and mission ought to saturate the whole of our lives and not be associated with a particular activity. It's about everyone being aware of their calling, not about finding something for each person to call "ministry" or "mission". There shouldn't be "I'm a missionary because I do X" or "My ministry is Y" because one shouldn't be able to identify in ones dealings with the church and the world what is mission and what isn't if the whole life is mission and ministry and witness.

Wow, I just think we might be agreed 100% then. I guess this happens ever so often.

 

[KMK]

And since the responsibility of the Great Commission devolves on every member of the church in some way and to some degree, I see nothing wrong with describing all of Christ's disciples as "missionaries" at some level though I also acknowledge the usage of that term to describe someone officially ordained and sent by the church to plant churches.

Regardless, if you start using the word 'missionary' to describe every Christian you are going to confuse a lot of people.

 

[Pergamum]

If theyse all be missionaries how come theyse aint out der mishing?

 

[KMK]

If theyse all be missionaries how come theyse aint out der mishing?

It would add a whole new meaning to the phrase, "Missionary Support". Obama would love it! Everyone gets a piece of the pie that you guys have been hoarding for the last 2000 years.

 

[Pergamum]

If theyse all be missionaries how come theyse aint out der mishing?

It would add a whole new meaning to the phrase, "Missionary Support". Obama would love it! Everyone gets a piece of the pie that you guys have been hoarding for the last 2000 years.

I aint been hoarding all that much. My pie slice has been rather thin at times!

 

[KMK]

If theyse all be missionaries how come theyse aint out der mishing?

It would add a whole new meaning to the phrase, "Missionary Support". Obama would love it! Everyone gets a piece of the pie that you guys have been hoarding for the last 2000 years.

I aint been hoarding all that much. My pie slice has been rather thin at times!

Well, c'mon, its not like you do anything important like fix toilets or dry clean shirts.