Paternal or Fraternal Relationship?

No experience here - but which relationship do you think would be better? In truth, I see advantages in both. Is it possible to exercise both relationships at the same time - until they're off and running on their own?

 

In our area of fellowship in Mexico, definitely as brothers. We have a national fellowship and the leadership is composed of both missionaries and national pastors. The current president of the fellowship is a national, and we would like to keep it that way.

The fraternal relationship will never build indigenous churches, IMO.

 

Nope. They must be taught to rely on the Father in heaven. Anything else is the arm of flesh. They must be taught their responsibility is to Christ as the head of the church, not the missionary. If they never get that they never get 'off and running on their own'.

 

Double post!

 

Squire,

You are quite correct, I did mean 'Paternal'. Clutch slipped a little bit as I engaged the gears there. Thanks for setting me straight and- our missions philosophies concur.

 

Squire,

Truth- however, I would say that more than the field, it depends on what type of people group you are working with. With the deaf on any given field it will take longer to train laborers and become unemployed than it will with the hearing. Will take longer with a tribe in the lagoons of the Philippines than with a group of urbanites in Manila.

 

Nope. They must be taught to rely on the Father in heaven. Anything else is the arm of flesh. They must be taught their responsibility is to Christ as the head of the church, not the missionary. If they never get that they never get 'off and running on their own'. </font>[/QUOTE]These are all good thoughts - and I heartily agree with them. But still, doesn't saying "they must be taught..." implicate something a father would do for his child? Do you see what I'm saying? And didn't even Paul consider Timothy his "son" in the ministry - so to speak? I speak of the instruction, protection, and guidance a father would give a son here - not that we should set ourselves up as authority. Are there any among us that would even hesitate to provide these things for new believers - or new pastors? As a relatively new pastor (3 years) I would welcome *some* of the elements of a "father" relationship.

Please understand what I'm saying.

 

I understand what you are saying, USN2Pulpit. Paul also wrote in 1 Cor. 4:15, "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."

The term paternalism brings up the idea of arrogance when it is used in connection with missions. But there is a Biblical paternalism in which the national feels a debt of love to the missionary for winning him to Christ, teaching him the Word, etc.

Japanese has a word, "onshi," which means loosely, "the teacher I have a debt to." It is used by the Japanese to refer to a mentor they owe a debt of love to. If we as missionaries imitate Paul, we will mentor such nationals. If this is fraternalism, I'm all for it.

"And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved" (2 Cor. 12:15).

 

Nope. They must be taught to rely on the Father in heaven. Anything else is the arm of flesh. They must be taught their responsibility is to Christ as the head of the church, not the missionary. If they never get that they never get 'off and running on their own'. </font>[/QUOTE]These are all good thoughts - and I heartily agree with them. But still, doesn't saying "they must be taught..." implicate something a father would do for his child? Do you see what I'm saying? And didn't even Paul consider Timothy his "son" in the ministry - so to speak? I speak of the instruction, protection, and guidance a father would give a son here - not that we should set ourselves up as authority. Are there any among us that would even hesitate to provide these things for new believers - or new pastors? As a relatively new pastor (3 years) I would welcome *some* of the elements of a "father" relationship.

Please understand what I'm saying. </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, Brother USN2Pulpit, I get your meaning here. I was thinking MikeinGhana was referring to those few (I hope) overbearing missionaries who think God and the nationals could not do their job without them.

 

One of those "John Wayne" types I know who was here previously in Japan ended up doing some financial shenanigans with church money, being fired from the church he started and let go from the mission board. Great damage can be done.