How should it be done?

Discussion in 'Missions / Witnessing / eVangelism' started by SaggyWoman, Jun 15, 2001.

  1. SaggyWoman

    SaggyWoman
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Messages:
    17,933
    Likes Received:
    8
    What do you think is the best and most biblical way for missions, mission work, and missionaries to be supported so that the gospel can be spread?

    Should missionaries have to do a lot of appeals for funding?
     
  2. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that the best way is for a missionary to go with full support from his home church. If possible and necessary he should have some part time way of support on the mission field.

    I think the worst way is the way we (most of us) do it. Years of wasted time on "deputation" (why don't they just find a sherriff?)
     
  3. Larry

    Larry
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2000
    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don’t think missions should be supported…. at least not in the way it’s being done.

    Suppose you lived in the jungle and two missionaries came to your town, one a fully trained and supported SBC missionary and the other an IFB missionary who after years of deputation has obtained funding.

    It’s not going to make a hill of beans worth of difference to you how they got funded. All you know is that some rich white-man is offering you soup and soap and wants to “convert” you to his religion.

    I remember seeing a SBC missionary, who was about to retire, make a heartfelt appeal for funding so a new missionary could takeover. After twenty some years in one African Village, she said that everything they had built will crumble if new missionaries were not sent in to take over. I don’t doubt that.

    The typical methods, in use today, remind me of the tacit used by the Americans in the Vietnam War. No matter how valiant the solders were, the problem was one of flawed tactics. In order to win a war, you have to:

    1. Send in ground troops and physically take and keep ground.
    2. Support new advances, from the newly acquired ground.

    Paul told Timothy to “do the work of an Evangelist” that is in the context of a local church taking and keeping ground.

    Now suppose a local church took the money they were sending to the foreign field and started a ground war in there home town. Maybe purchase time on local secular radio and TV to present the gospel (not an advertisement for your church) billboards and of cores members of the congregation doing personal evangelism. What if the local church was hitting on all eight cylinders? New converts were being discipled to the point where they were ready to go out and win and disciple new converts.

    What if, instead of building a bigger church, the church split, according to geographic location, and repeated the process? What if they simply crossed borders as they came to them?

    How about, if the Lord lead someone to go to the jungle, they asked questions about finances while on their way to the jungle?
     
  4. Larry

    Larry
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2000
    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ps: I'm not against missionary's going to foreign places. I have personally helped support a Bible Smuggler and church planter in China and missionary's in the Philippines. What I am saying is that we need to do the bulk of our missions at home and send in the "Special Forces" as the Lord leads.
     
  5. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry, I think it's a great idea if we reproduce ourselves [​IMG] . If we do send someone to the Mission Field, then those living there should be taught the work of the ministry (2 Tim 2:2). I have difficulty with our "Great White Hope's" going to the field as if we are the only answer.We must reproduce ourselves and do so by the natives of that particular land.
    Another problem I've had in IFB churches, is this idea of $25.00 per month. Most IFB churches support alot of missionaries for this pathetic amount and brag that they're supporting alot of missionaries.I think the IFB churches ought to exercise more faith and increase the amount to a minimun of $100.00 per month, even if they can't brag on how many.I agree with you, Larry that this is the way it ought to be done.
    PS- I know of a church in Chattanooga, TN that used to brag that they support 500 + missionaries, but they neglected to say that it was for the small change of $25.00 per month and that they also counted all the family memebers, including children, hence making the numbers larger! :rolleyes: Of course all the family members are to be missionaries, but then they should've have clarified it. ;)
    Sincerely,
     
  6. r5dots

    r5dots
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just posted a similar message to the General Board asking about missions...I hope you all will read it and respond!
     
  7. tlange

    tlange
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Being involved in missions, I feel that the Faith Promise or Grace Giving found in II Cor 8 & 9 is scriptural and is the most successful. It all depends on how each local church chooses to implement it.

    I have seen and heard stories of lots of churches who used to give a percentage of their total budget, who converted over to Faith Promise and watched not only their missions giving increase substantially, but also their general fund increased as well!

    I know that there are some critics out there, but this is my opinion and experience :D
     
  8. Jon Nelms

    Jon Nelms
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    There is always a need for the missionary to go in and break new ground. He is to be followed by the pastors and teachers. In most cases a missionary is really an evangelist/pastor. But in every Biblical case, the missionary (a word that is not found in the Bible) was the "first" one to take the gospel to an area or people. That is why Paul proclaimed that he did not build on any other man's foundation. We make a mistake when we think that the missionary must be a foriegner or even an American. In our ministry we subsidize about 800 national preachers who are all church planters. As a result, in the past 15 years, they have started a total of nearly 15,000 churches, with the help of their "Timothys" and the sponsor's funding. Some believe it is wrong to use "American monney" to support non American preachers. To them I say, "the earth is the Lord's and everything in it". If our desire is to reach the world with the gospel, then lets use the tools God has put in our hands to do it with. Yes there are parimeters that should be addressed; but qualification for support should not be limited to color or nationality. It should be given to those who are able and proven. In short, no one knows the language, culture, and customs better than the national preachers do. No one is more accustomed to the heat, the food and the circumstances than they are. If they are doctrinally sound (Baptistic), morally pure, and have experience in church planting and discipleship ... why shouldn't we give them the standard missioinary allotment of $25.00 per month. For many of them, that wold be nearly a full time wage. For the average American missionary (myself included), it is an insignifcant percentage.

    [ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: Jon Nelms ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...