Missions, Part 1

Transcript

GRM 89
07/06/1980
Missions, Part 1
Selected Scripture
Gil Rugh

This evening we’re going to pursue the subject of missions. We’ve been talking about various things in our evenings together, discipleship, parachurch ministries, and this evening, missions. There’s not necessarily a definite plan or order in the subjects, although these that we’ve discussed have tied together, either loosely or closely. Perhaps missions and parachurch tie together more closely than some other things we’ll be discussing. Just let me recommend two books to you on the subject of missions that you may be interested in if you’re interested in pursuing the subject more in detail than we will. Probably the best basic text that I’m familiar with is A Biblical Theology of Missions by George Peters. George Peters is from Dallas Seminary. He’s written a rather thorough treatment of the subject of missions. He writes it more as a textbook and is very thorough. I find myself in theological agreement with Peters so I think you will too and find it helpful.

A book that I find very stimulating is Frontiers in Missionary Strategy by Peter Wagner. I find myself a little less theologically attuned or in agreement with Peter Wagner but he presents some stimulating concepts. Peter’s book reads more like a textbook. I think you’ll find Wagner’s book is easier to read and more fun to read if I can use that kind of expression. Both are profitable but Wagner gives you some challenging things to think about, and he’s not concerned whether he upset the apple cart so to speak or not.

You won’t agree with everything here; I hope not but I think you will find it helpful. I’ll refer to some of them and then another book I didn’t recommend because I’m too far away theologically from him, but it’s got some good stuff. First, I want to say, “I believe in missions.” Some of you have questioned that after being at Indian Hills for a while. I believe that the world needs to be reached with the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe it’s desirable that everyone hear the gospel, have opportunity to believe the message concerning Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection. I do have questions about the methods being used today. Are we being as biblical as we can and ought to be in carrying out this program? Again, I think it’s an area, where we can lapse into being traditional, and this is the way evangelical churches have functioned.

I find myself battling at times with a guilt complex because in my upbringing an evangelical church was a church that had a Sunday morning service, a Sunday evening service, a Wednesday night service and a strong missions program. So I evaluated and say, do we have the kind of missions program I’m familiar with? Therefore are we evangelical? I think that we just need to examine, is what we are doing the biblical pattern? Now even where I will disagree with some of what is being done today, I still praise the Lord for the proclamation of the gospel.

It came up last week and I do agree with Philippians chapter 1, and I’ll just note this at the beginning. Philippians chapter 1 and I don’t want to say that those that I’m going to talk about tonight are in this category, but in Philippians chapter 1 verse 15. “Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice.”

I think that we ought to have that attitude, and my concern as we consider this subject this evening is not to discredit or attack those who are proclaiming the gospel of Christ, but simply again to draw our attention as a local body of believers to the Scripture. To evaluate what God says about missions and how we ought to be carrying out a program of missions, and are there things we could be doing that would make us more effective, in reaching the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ?

We’re going to look at the pattern as is developed in the New Testament, and as I’ve just worked through particularly the Book of Acts and then some passages in the epistles. I see the pattern being that Paul traveled into an area proclaiming the gospel. When people believed, a local church was established. If they did not believe, he moved on to another area. I think that there may be something to that. Those in the church growth movement, Peter Wagner being a leader in that, have a position they take called, “receptive peoples or ripe harvests.” That we ought to give more attention to where the Lord is drawing in a harvest and concentrate our efforts, energies, and finances there and I am interested that Paul, went from place to place, and there is a certain pattern that parallels that.

Where he was rejected or opposed, he moved on to a new area and preached. Where the people believed, a church was started. Now even when a local church was established, he didn’t stay there indefinitely with that local church. Relatively short periods of time, a year and a half at Corinth, three years at Ephesus, three weeks at Thessalonica so varying periods of time, but even the three years at Ephesus is not what we would call a long ministry. He stayed, people came to trust Christ, they were established, he appointed elders then he went on to another area. Also, a pattern and we’re going to look at the Book of Acts, I’m just sharing with you ahead of time.

A pattern was established, I believe that those who benefited from Paul’s ministry or those who primarily were involved in his support, those who benefited from the ministry supported him. Perhaps you could turn over to the Book of Acts chapter 18. Now just as background in Acts chapter 16, Paul has ministered the Word at Philippi. Philippi is in northern Greece, the providence of northern Greece and he’s ministered the Word there in chapter 16. Then in Acts chapter 18, he comes to Corinth and he “stays with Aquila” in verse 2, “a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.” He came to them and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them, and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers.

He was “reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks but when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the Word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.” You’ll note he works supporting himself when he went to Corinth. It always amazes me as I study Paul’s ministry that there would ever come a time that he’d be supporting himself. You would think with the impact of his ministry, there would always be funds pouring in, and in abundance, but that wasn’t the case.

In verse, five “when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia,” where Philippi was, “Paul began devoting himself completely to the word.” In other words, he didn’t any longer have to make tents because those who came from Macedonia brought finances for him. Over in Philippians chapter 4 that’s alluded to, in Philippians chapter 4 the Philippians have sent him a gift and they had done this on more than one occasion. In Philippians 4:15 Paul says, “you yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone, even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs.” And on then to thank them for it and to note that “it was something that was pleasing to God that they had shared in his ministry, but that those who had benefited from his ministry were involved in supporting him.” So there he had been in Philippi, and carried on a ministry there, not long but he leaves there to go elsewhere and those that he had ministered to there are involved in sending him on his way to other places.

This is also the pattern in 2 Corinthians chapter 11 and verse 7. Paul talks about the fact that others supported him in his ministry at Philippi, particularly the Philippians. “Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God to you without charge? I robbed other churches taking wages from them to serve you; and when I was present with you and was in need, I was not a burden to anyone; for when the brethren came from Macedonia they fully supplied my need, and in everything I kept myself from being a burden to you, and will continue to do so.”

Now I don’t think Paul is saying that he would do it differently but you’ll note in verse 8 that he “robbed other churches taking wages from them.” I think that he is saying that the normal pattern was that you would have been expected to support me, since I was ministering to you and I think the basic pattern is those who are benefiting from the ministry, support the ministry, and those who have benefited from the ministry may support the ongoing of that ministry, as well.

Now just to go through the Book of Acts briefly to refresh our minds beginning in chapter 13, where we have the first missionary journey. Now there are missions before this and outreach but as far as the real development of the church and Paul’s program, with the churches, that begins with chapter 13. In verse 1, “now they were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” So here we are at the church in Antioch. You note there were prophets and teachers in the church there. We talked a little bit about the ministry of the church last week and Ephesians chapter 4 talking about apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor-teachers.

Here you have prophets and teachers in the church, at Antioch and “as they’re ministering the Holy Spirit said, ‘set apart Barnabas and Saul to the work that I have called them to,’” so in verse 3 “they laid hands on them, fasted, prayed, and sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went to Seleucia” and I think what has happened here is the church is joined in the ministry that the Spirit has given them. The laying on of hands would be indicative of that. Now what happens is the church then stands behind Paul and Barnabas, but not with the finances we might expect. They may have given them some financial means to get them on the way, but we do find Paul collecting finances or being supported as he goes along in churches like Philippi and later on, as we read at Corinth. Now what he does, he’s being sent out from the church, he goes and establishes churches.

Over in chapter 14 verse 23. He’s “ministered in various cities, Lystra, Iconium, Antioch,” not the same Antioch that he was sent out from and in verse 23. “When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they believed and they passed through Pisidia and came to Pamphylia.” Now you see the pattern, they start out at the church at Antioch, Syrian Antioch and then they take this journey and most of you are familiar. You can look in your bible maps for the “Journeys of Paul” to go into these areas, Lystra, Iconium and Antioch and establish churches. In verse 23, “they appointed elders in every church,” talking about elders as being an essential part of having a local body of believers and then they go on to a new area. They’re really a key thrust and what they’re doing is evangelism. They are reaching out with the gospel of Christ and where people believe, a church is started and where people don’t believe, they continue on to a new area.

Down in chapter 15 of Acts. There is a confrontation, a doctrinal confrontation. “Some of the Jews were saying that, you must be circumcised or you cannot be saved,” and so, verse 2. “Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders” and in verse 4. “When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and elders,” so, you have a church at Jerusalem, ruled by the apostles and elders. They are the leaders in the church as is evident as the discussion goes on further down in chapter 15 verse 41 the ministry continues. “Having been sent on their way, they settled that” and in verse 22 you might just pick up. “It seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church to choose men, and they send out their message.”

Just picking up here, the emphasis on the involvement of the church in the missions programs, in the decisions that are being made. In verse 41 of chapter 15. “He was traveling through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.” Now this is the second missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas have separated in a disagreement over John Mark and now Paul takes Silas and is traveling now through Syria and Cilicia strengthening the churches. Down in chapter 16 verse 4. “While they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe, so the churches were being strengthened in the faith were increasing in number daily.”

So here, you see the growth of this local body of believers, increasing in number. I take it, it emphasizes the fact they are evangelistic in their emphases. They are reaching out to people with the gospel. Over in chapter 17 Paul comes to Thessalonica, “and when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica,” and then Paul goes into the synagogue and his stay here is short. Probably about three weeks because the opposition builds but we know a church is established here because he writes the first letter to the Thessalonians, and the second letter to the Thessalonians and he starts those letters by addressing them as the church

In First Thessalonians chapter 1, “Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,” so the result of being there, people are saved, a local church is started. In Acts chapter 18 verse 1, “after these things, he left Athens and went to Corinth,” and we’re familiar with the Corinthian church from the letters that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, first and second letters. In chapter 19 verse 1, “it came about that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and a local church is established.” Over in chapter 20, there is the reference to “the elders” in verse 17, “of the church at Ephesus.” “From Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church.” Again, he had established that body of believers and had appointed elders.

While you are in chapter 20 verse 4 we are told that sometimes representatives from the churches that he had established traveled with him “and he was accompanied by Sopater of Berea, the son of Pyrrhus, by Aristarchus, Secundus of the Thessalonians, Gaius of Derbe, Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia.” So he has picked up men from the churches in areas where he’s ministered and they do travel with him, but I’m convinced the pattern through the Book of Acts is that he goes into an area with the purpose of evangelizing, presenting the gospel of Christ. People are saved, a local body of believers is established and he goes on. Now there is a reinforcing ministry that goes on as well. Paul goes back, sends them letters, visits them, but that body becomes a functioning body. Paul sometimes sends a representative like Timothy or Titus to help that church get established properly, but those churches then become functioning entities in that area.

Now, my question and concern is, are we being as biblical as we should be in our present day missions program or have we lost something in effectiveness? Let me read you a quote from George Peters and this was written, while he was ministering in Africa. “Missions and churches who place evangelism first are reaping abundantly, doubling every three or four years. The tragedy of the situation is that most evangelical missions, are so overloaded with institutionalism that it becomes practically impossible to free personnel for the ministry of evangelism. Of course, the argument is that the national church is to evangelize. This sounds logical and easy; however, this raises two serious questions. Are we still missions. Have we not ceased to be missions and become a service agency? Again, how does this speak of our priority? A wrong sense of priorities is also developing in the churches, as missions retreat into institutions so the national church, consciously or unconsciously, desires to do so.”

Now I read that just because here is a man, who has given his life to missions and I respect him as an authority and a leader in this area, and yet he sees questions and concerns with where we are, and how we are going. I think what has happened to a large extent with missions, is that it has become disassociated from the local church, and it has become its own parachurch entity and so it runs alongside the church. Let me read you just a couple of statements from a book that is challenging, but the theology in it is very poor and sometimes very unbiblical. The Church and its Mission, A Shattering Critique From the Third World by Orlando E. Kostus and he has some stimulating things to say but he talks about the origin of the modern missionary movement. It’s interesting how soon we settle in to traditionalism.

You know it’s shocking to me how quickly we have come to be traditional at Indian Hills. You know when we are going to change that is an unsettling thing, and you know very quickly we settle in. We’ve only been in existence a relativity short time, and yet now we still have the way we do things and it’s easy to hold on to that. Missions is relatively new. The modern missionary movement is usually dated with William Kerry in 1792. Let me read you something about what he says about the development of missions and again this is in a section talking about the relationship of the church and missions. Each of these men that I’ve referred to have a section in their book on this subject, and all note that it is a major problem, that how the church fits and how missions fit, the mission societies today, so we’re not the only ones wrestling with the issue.

He says, “The problem stems in part, (the problem of the church/ mission conflict) from the ambiguous origin of the modern missionary movement, which originated as a result of the Pietistic phenomenon. The Pietistic movement grew basically as a reaction to the theological scholasticism of the seventeenth century Protestantism. It was a call to reformation of life. In other words, the reformation had strong emphasis on doctrine, but not as strong an emphasis as was needed on the practical life. There were those called the Pietist, who felt there needed to be a stronger emphasis on godliness in life and they became the foundation for revival movements and so on and it was a reaction to the movement of the Reformation and its cold theological stance.”

“Since the Pietist aimed at the reformation of the life of the church, since not all the church responded to their call to renewal, their pietistic endeavors lead to the phenomenon of church within the church. This in turn led to the formation of Missionary Societies and I’m skipping sections. This isn’t concurrent. These societies operated alongside the institutional church, thus missionaries were sent by non-church organizations to plant the church in Africa, Asia and America. In consequence, it was a movement, which in spite of its origin, carried on its missionary enterprise will little reflection on the nature and mission of the church. The results of such an effort was clusters of believers with little church conscientiousness.”

I think that summarizes somewhat, the development. Cain and Glover in their book on the history of missions, gives you more of a detailed development of the Pietistic movement. There’s some further comments that could be made but we’ll go on to other things.

You have the church as it existed. You have those who are reacting to the church in its coldness, and they had a point and since they could not make the point with the church in reaching the world, they developed societies, which had the purpose of evangelizing the world. It’s interesting and Wagner developed this but these Missionary Societies were developed along the guidelines of the trading organizations of the day. The trading groups of the day became the pattern organizationally for these structures, so you see what you have. You have a church now that wasn’t really interested in reaching the world. Then you have societies structured alongside the church whose program is going to be to reach the world and thus we continue.

Now Peters makes the point and I haven’t thought it all through yet, quite frankly, that the church has the right to delegate some of this responsibility to these kinds of organizations, but my question is, if missions is at the heart of the church and its purpose, can you delegate away what is basic to your existence? There are certain things I cannot delegate, such as my responsibility as a husband and a father in my family. Well if evangelism and edification are the responsibility of the church, then we cannot delegate that. I cannot delegate that, which God has committed to me, as a responsibility. We cannot delegate what is essential to the very nature of the church, and my question is, is this an essential part of the church in its functioning? If so, I don’t know that it can be delegated out to other organizations without tremendous loss to the church in its functioning.

Let me read you a couple of things and again this is more miscellaneous thoughts that we’ve been having on missions and it is an area that we’ve been bouncing around a little bit within the staff and we have some profitable times I believe. It’s made me think about it more thoroughly. Wagner and he writes after having spent some 16 years in Latin America. He’s now a professor at Fuller School of Missions in Pasadena and I first became familiar with him when I was out there for some studies. He has some hindrances to missionary strategy, and he says some churches and some missions seem to have built in inertia. Many of us are all too content to continue our missionary program the way it has always been done, and he also notes all innovation and change require a certain willingness to experiment. So one hindrance to missionary strategy, he believes we’ve been tied too long to, tradition and culture.

Secondly, we’ve not been trained to diagnose the health of the church. I think this is an area of importance. We are afraid, really, to examine our effectiveness. Now I think this is true in missions. It’s almost sub spiritual and he gives the example of statistics, and you may not feel as strongly about it, but the church growth movement is very strong on statistics, because you can measure statistics but statistics we all know, don’t tell the full story. But he says, one of indications of this problem of diagnosing the health of the church is the wide spread indifference to statistics exhibited by missionaries. As anyone who has attempted to write an analytical study of the growth of the churches in any given area knows, accurate and meaningful statistics are extremely difficult to come by. Without statistics, it is difficult to diagnose the health of a church.

I really believe that’s true. I believe that if we don’t examine ourselves statistically, we’re not being honest. Do we have more people at Indian Hills this year than we did last year? Now be careful, we say, “well that’s just the numbers game,” but I don’t even need to ask, if we don’t, why not? Have we reached everybody that needs to be reached in the city of Lincoln with the gospel of Jesus Christ? We need to be honest. We don’t like statistics because they are concrete. I was reading this in a church report that I was reading. We have ceased to grow numerically but it’s just like a piece of fruit. Once it’s grown to its maximum size then it develops its juiciness and so on and that’s nice but it’s hard to measure juiciness and if we’re not careful, we fall into that and I’m not sure that it’s totally honest.

Here is a point that I want to make because you may want to pick up on it as we move along, and that is the matter of a need. We have based our strategy on need and he gives an example. We must move missionaries into West Zacks; they have such a tremendous need there and then he says, this type of statement has been repeated, over and over again, as sufficient justification for assignment of missionary personnel. But when examined in the light of strategy and goals that has little meaning, since all people without Christ have equal need, it becomes a self-neutralizing term when applied to missionary work. When we stop and think about it that’s true.

The people, who are unsaved in Lincoln, are just as needy as the people who are unsaved in China. There is a tremendous need, but there’s a tremendous need, you know there are people in the city of Lincoln who have yet to hear the gospel. Now I realize they have more opportunity and that’s a point that needs developed shortly. Now their point and I must admit a sympathy with it. He says, the law of the harvest demands that laborers, whether missionaries or nationals, be sent to the harvest field in the greatest number possible, as long as each is reaping to his capacity. The deceptive use of need is to base strategy on how many previous evangelistic trips have been made to a certain region. This is the fallacy of, quote, “No one should hear twice until everyone has heard once.”

Now it reverses things. If there is a budding harvest over here, it’s time to harvest this field. That doesn’t mean necessarily we want to send half our workers over here where there’s no harvest and let this harvest rot and yet sometimes we feel guilty by channeling more workers when there’s more response but I think there’s a certain validity to that. God doesn’t always do the same thing among the same group of people. There are times when He’s working among certain groups of people in a greater way than among other groups of people. Yet I think that perhaps we’ve been negligent and we bypass a harvest because we don’t want to send any more workers there because they’ve got all they deserve.
There are people over here who haven’t heard, and yet God has sovereignly determined that He’s going to harvest a great number of people here, but we have sovereignly determined that we’re not going to send any workers there to do it. I think we need to be open to the Lord’s leading in this area.

He also says, “we’ve used the Holy Spirit as a smoke screen,” and I tell you this book can be challenging to you if you read it. I appreciate the fact that he doesn’t hesitate to express himself. He gives an example of an author whose literary gifts almost cloud the real issue when he says, “We must resist the glamorous temptation of statistics. Persist for the long hard pull. Diamonds take longer to grow than toad stools.” This may lead us to believe that meager fruit for evangelistic efforts has a diamond like quality while an abundant harvest is most likely to be nothing but toadstools. This is what is meant by putting up a smoke screen.

It doesn’t really deal with the issue and the last point he makes, we have substituted good activities for making disciples. Someone has rightly said, “the good is the eternal enemy of the best.” Let me just read a little bit of this to you. “Really hardly anything, a missionary does is bad.” “ We are doing good in one sense or another. Mission public relations organs including prayer letters often have been geared toward convincing supporter to approve whatever we are doing rather than providing the type of information that will enable them to make an independent judgment as to what returns they might be getting on their investment. Since much of this camouflage is the true gold, supporters are deprived of the measuring sticks most needed, against which to match performance.” One missionary reporter describing a work he had observed said, “This kind of evangelism is a fantastic work for the Lord and produces a rich harvest of souls.”

Most of us have tended to report on our work in this kind of imprecise terminology, so this is not pointing the finger at some isolated case. “We have given the impression that for the public to require more precise reporting of missionary work is carnal. Suppose someone reading this report wrote to the missionary involved and asked for an accounting of his stated goals in terms of the population of the area, the percentage of those people that are hearing the gospel, the response in determining the number of disciples made, the number of churches planted, rates of growth in the churches and so on. The missionary involved in all probability would accuse this person of medaling and consider him out of order for asking such questions, and there are other areas.” I just mention that because I want to share with you that those who are really involved in missions, to a much greater extent than I am, are thinking through some of these issues and they are battling them around. They are wrestling with them.

I have some quotes that I was going to read for you from George Peter’s book but I won’t take time to do that. He’s got a whole chapter, chapter six of his book, is on the relationship of the church and missions and the conflict that exists there and the problem in resolving that. I don’t claim to have all the answers but I am concerned whether we are giving conscience money to missions. In other words we give money to go overseas because it makes us feel good, and not because we have resolved that this is the most biblical thing to do and the most effective thing to do with the Lord’s money. And I’ve shared this with some and it’s the thing we go with, we wrestle with here at Indian Hills. You know it’s not a question of we have abundance of money and we are just too stingy to share it. There’s the question of the money we commit here, we know what it accomplishes.

Now do we want to decide not to carry on a certain ministry here because it’s more spiritual to minister over there and I haven’t resolved all of that yet? I realize there’s the danger of selfishness but I feel a great burden for the responsibility the Lord has given me, that I won’t be able to give an account. Well Lord, I just felt that you know it would be nice to give money elsewhere if He has called me to reach this area. Now I believe in people going to other places to minister the gospel. I believe the Great Commission. It says we are “to make disciples of all nations.” I believe the goal is to make disciples and I believe Peter Wagner has a valid point when he says we ought to evaluate it on the process of making disciples. It’s not good enough just to go and proclaim the message. He didn’t go and say just go and proclaim, but He said go and make disciples, and that’s why I think there is validity in the concept of ripe peoples or ripe harvests since the goal is to make disciples, where people are responding.

I want to be open to channel efforts and I see Paul doing this somewhat as he moved along from one area to another. For some reason we are satisfied to channel a limitless number of resources, both people and finances to areas where there’s no indication that God is doing anything, and I just question the validity of that. Is that the pattern of the New Testament? I question the validity of whether we send people there for the rest of their life. I don’t have the answer to that. I think that sometimes we may. I haven’t resolved it. I’m just sharing with you some of my questions. Is this the most biblical way to do missions?

I do believe that the local church ought to be sending men who are the cream of the crop. I am concerned that we are not sending front line personnel who are doing evangelistic ministry. The bulk of people who inquire of us regarding support are going out into support ministry and I believe in the importance of support ministries. We have many people here at Indian Hills who are support personnel. They’re essential for the functioning of the ministry but I’m concerned. We wouldn’t need support personnel if there wasn’t evangelism going on, and I wonder how much evangelism is going on. I wonder on the checking process. You have this kind of situation. You have the church and you have the Mission Society, and all the church gives is the dollars and I have a question. If someone would come and want to work at Indian Hills and say, I have all my support. The people in France have given me the money because they believe Lincoln is a needy area, can you use me? And if he had, you know, was a believer, was straight doctrinally, we’d put him to work. He may not be the most effective worker but you know really that it’s not costing us anything. Someone else is willing to pay the bill. Why should we send him home, there’s always something he could do? Now he may not be the most effective person, to do it. But do you think I’m going to send him home?

This was driven home to me when I asked Lex Dewitt, Lex we’ve supported for five years in South Africa. When he was home last time I said, “Lex, who checks on you out there?” I believe Lex is with a good solid mission board, or he was, he’s no longer one that I respect. You know what he says, “nobody.” He says, “the best thing Indian Hills could do would be to send a couple elders out to spend a week or two with me, to evaluate my ministry and tell me whether I’m doing the right things.” I said, “now wait, we’ve been channeling money out there for five years and nobody’s been checking on you?” He said, “I don’t see any mission’s personnel from one year to the next.” Once a year? Who tells whether you’re doing--? I don’t know whether he’s out there with 20 people because he’s on a hard field, or because maybe, there needs to be a different emphases in the ministry, but I see that as a problem here.

Who knows? Ask the mission board. A great man doing a great job. How do they know? Well you know he hasn’t gotten into any moral problems. He hasn’t gone off the deep end doctrinally, but you know we couldn’t function that way as a local church. We couldn’t support a man here indefinitely to work with 20 people for 20 years. We’d say that’s not a good use. People here have questions about our large staff when it breaks down to one pastor for every 3 or 400 people, but we think nothing of channeling money overseas, for a person to work with 5 or 10 people indefinitely. Why? That is spiritual. Now I just have a question in my mind why it is spiritual. Now again I realize there are hard places. Maybe we need to do that some places. I just want to know for sure myself that it is the right thing to do.

One thing I think would help and there are churches moving toward this and I was reading some articles from John MacArthur’s church that they require anybody they support to work for a year as an intern at their church and at the end of that year they will decide whether they can support them or not.

You have somebody come through and show his slides and give you a report and on their way? So I’m for supporting people. If we had men right now who were demonstrating their gifts and ability in reaching people with the gospel, I’d be ready to stand behind them and support them fully wherever they believe the Lord would want them to go. I believe some of you men may be those men and I believe we’re developing toward that point but I believe those men ought to come out of a local congregation. They ought to be men of proven ability. If you can’t do it here, you won’t be able to do it there.

One verse I want to mention, and it’s not related to what I was just saying, but I’m going to mention it anyway, Acts chapter 1 verse 8. We were talking about this with staff this week and I’ve been bouncing it around and wanted to mention it for some time. Acts chapter 1 verse 8 is often taken as the missionary pattern. “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” We say, see that’s the pattern? You start where your local church is and then you reach out to the next area and the next area. I really have serious question whether Acts 1:8 can be used that way. I think when Jesus was talking in Acts 1:8 He was talking about the literal, historical Jerusalem, and then I believe he was talking about the literal historical Samaria, and then from there to the utter most parts the earth and as most of you are familiar that is the outline and pattern of the Book of Acts.

I have questions about the validity of establishing our missionary program on a spiritualizing of a verse of Scripture. That this is Jerusalem and our Samaria is Nebraska and Iowa, and surrounding places and then out to the uttermost parts of the earth. I don’t know that I see that in Acts 1:8 and the question we’ve been rolling around is if its not in Acts 1:8 where is it? It’s a pattern that we have accepted but not really evaluated biblically. Acts 1:8 “Jerusalem, Samaria, the uttermost parts of the earth.” That’s fine and that’s what they did in Acts. Acts chapter 2, Jerusalem, Acts 8, Samaria, and with Paul’s missionary journeys in chapter 13 you have the uttermost parts of the earth. I don’t see that as necessarily the pattern that God has established for this local church. It’s not the pattern developed anywhere else in Scripture. I am interested that Paul gives no emphasis, in his letters to his churches that you are failing in sending men to reach the world or personnel to reach the world.

Now I don’t find that in the letters to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 quite frankly, so I just want to evaluate it. Again, I don’t have all the answers. I’m throwing out some of this and it may sound critical, but you have to understand where I am in some of my thinking. These are questions I have, and I want to resolve them biblically. Again, the simplest way is if there are men that are raised up that demonstrate their gifts that are functioning as part of this body. Then I’d have no problem in standing behind them. We’re going to go elsewhere, wherever it was in the world, to carry on that ministry and maybe we’ve not made that clear and so it stifled the program.

All right, let me stop there and open it up for a couple of minutes for questions. We’ll be doing this next Sunday but then one more week, I want to spend in tying some of these things together before I go on vacation. I am going to be here two more Sundays.

I don’t know that I could say because I don’t know that Paul had a--each area will probably determine, but I was impressed with what Lex said, there’s a man in south Africa or he was there, his name is Olsen. His brother founded the Berean Churches. Lex said you know you can tell everywhere that man has been in South Africa because there is a local church. Now that seems to me maybe that would be a biblical pattern because it sounds like Paul. You know, everywhere he went you could tell, so I think it would vary, and I’m not sure that a man maybe ought not to go to just one area, and stay there. I haven’t resolved that issue totally, but just that it’s not the pattern that the New Testament followed it doesn’t seem.

That the personnel came out of that group there and that would solve some of the questions now that are revolving around nationalism and so on. Now, somehow we have the idea that the way we do it is the best, and if we’re not there to keep our finger on it, it won’t go and yet that’s not the way Paul functioned. That doesn’t answer all the question but it raises some in my mind. Maybe you’ll have some observations. Maybe you’ll have some things you’ll want to write on the cards. Maybe next Sunday at five o’clock, you’ll have some things that you’d like to say. I’m concerned that we have a biblical program as a church. That doesn’t mean I have all the insights, but I think that as we search the Scriptures, we ought to come to some biblical conclusions and I’m not anxious to rush into things just to rush into it, because someone else is doing it.

The question is sending women on the mission field to plant churches. I really have some convictions and we’re going to talk about women and that whole area when I get back from vacation. I am afraid to do it before I go; least I am called to hurry home. I really believe that the biblical pattern is that men go, and I’m disturbed with the emphasis I read among some evangelicals that since there were no men, we send women. Again, it’s this kind of situation when we’re going to help God out that we get into problems. We have to determine what is the biblical way to do it and I believe that biblical way is, the responsibility is on the men and I believe the men are accountable. I think it is a tragedy that we send the women out and put the burden on them, when that’s not where the New Testament places it.

It does not say the women couldn’t have a part in missions, but I believe the responsibility in the front line missionary activity is primarily a man’s responsibility just like it rests upon the men in the local church. Again, it points up that there are more women that are asking, would you support me to go to the mission field than there are men and I think that maybe we take the pressure off the men in the wrong sense. We’re not going to send “anybody,” until the Spirit so burdens the right person to go that he can’t stand it, and He’ll select him out just like He did in Acts 13. I think that the person will become aware and we as a church will be aware. I think there will be a mutual agreement.

You know, sometimes we have people say, oh, yes, I want to go to the field and we can’t see any qualifications there. What are you going to do on the field? Evangelize. Have you led anybody to the Lord? Not yet. Well why don’t you spend a year working in our follow-up program then and let’s see if that’s an area the Lord’s gifted you in. If He’s gifted you as an evangelist, you’ll be able to lead people to the Lord here and not only there. I think we’ve taken the pressure off, so my personal conviction is that, and I hate to share this…let me say it that we ought not to send any more women to the mission field and that’s where we are as a holding pattern right now. Since we like to have a hundred percent agreement as a board of elders, we have at least one elder right now who is voting no. I really have convictions that we’ve done the wrong thing in that area.

I think that may be true, that we could be looking more into that. I think we’re developing this with our emphasis on men and their responsibilities even as Bible study leaders and in other areas. I think that as you function, you become more aware of how God wants to use you and the burdens will develop and it will become more clear to us as a body, who these men are that have these abilities that God may want to use in other places. I think that’s going on as the natural process, because it’s the same as elders, I believe. We don’t look around to see is there anyone here who’s not been functioning, not been doing anything, who we might make an elder but its those who have been functioning, carrying on responsibilities and demonstrating their spiritual condition and so on.

I feel the same with the mission field, that probably when we do send men they ought to be the men we say, oh boy, I sure hate to see them go, don’t want them to go, so they’ll be naturally the ones that are the most effective and active in the body in their functioning. Now I believe there may be some that’ll go to seminary and so on and we’ve had men go to seminary that we’ve stood behind if God would lead them to the field. There may be more that we could do in exposing, ourselves to the needs around the world, but I think what’s essential for them is a heartfelt burden for the lost, and for reaching them, and then that’s preparatory then to where the Lord would want to direct them.