Critique of Missionary Methods

There are some good points in the article. In particular, though the article doesn't use this term, some of the practices mentioned violate the indigenous principle--the belief that the nationals should support their own work. I have long wondered why Indian evangelists and other Christian workers come to America to raise support.

An observation: it should be noted that the missionaries mentioned in the article are not Americans missionaries, who are not allowed permanent visas. They are no doubt Indian nationals.

Another observation: the writer of the article appears to believe that agressive evangelism is a root cause of the persecution. But that will always be so. Heat produces friction, and "all they who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."

 

The writer seems to favor the Social Gospel:

"Over the last few centuries the Great Commission became the priority of the church, which led to spawning of several evangelistic ministries to the total neglect of the Great Commandment. . . .Shouldn't there be a re-look?
No voices were raised regarding the linking of the Great Commission with Matthew 24:14 and it appears that few bothered to check that Matthew 24:14 talked about preaching the gospel as a 'testimony to all nations' and not about 'harvesting souls' or converting people or planting of churches. Somewhere along the line in a very subtle manner converting people became the agenda of the church. . . .Neither did we question the priority given to the Great Commission over the Greatest Commandment (Matthew 22:37-39). Anyone who did was bracketed with the liberals! My point is, isn't the Greatest commandment greater than all other commandments? Should we not be interpreting the Great Commission in the context of and under the Greatest Commandment? If we gave priority to the Greatest Commandment, love and service would become the agenda of the Church, which would include sharing the gospel too. Love would be the primary agenda. Would we be willing to love and serve our fellow countrymen even if they were to declare openly that they do not wish to be converted to Christianity? Would that not be the test of true love?
Further, it must be noted that the term 'great commission' is a hermeneutical term while the words 'greatest commandment' was acknowledged and used by the Lord Himself."

 

Unfortunately, the Charismatics with their heresies send a lot of money out to the mission fields of the world. And they do great damage to already existing churches. I've had three bad experiences with Charismatics: twice they stole members and once they tried to steal members and failed.

 

Only three, in all those years ?

Thats about my annual average .

 

Just lucky I guess!

I've had other experiences, but not so bad: a lady in Tokyo trying to get me to speak in tongues, a pastor telling me not to do evangelism in his neighborhood, etc.

 

I've heard Spanish say that missionaries ambush them even though they want nothing to do with it. I also heard a Catholic complain to me that people will walk into their church during Mass and shout at them to convert them. Some really offensive stuff.

From my studies of history the early christians seemed to speak in public forums. Reason with people in the appropiate place. But most of all feed the hungry and take care of the poor. Paul was invited to synagogues and spoke in a philosophers forum. But most christians witnessed by their ministering to needs and their life styles. Anyway thats how I see it.

 

I'll agree that this is inappropriate.

May I suggest that you need to study more--especially the book of Acts, where Paul spoke to people individually and in groups, it didn't matter. As far as the early Christians went, often they were persescuted and thus could not speak in open forums.

Concerning feeding the hungry and taking care of the poor, Japan is a place where 95% of the people are middle class. I can't even find the hungry, much less help the poor! I think I'll just keep on getting out the Gospel! :thumbs:

 

I'm reminded of the "rice Christians" in the heyday of Protestant missions in China, before the Communists took over. The missionaries would take pity on the poor Chinese and hire them for menial jobs or help them in other ways. The Chinese who came to church and professed conversion just for the benefits were called "rice Christians." They soon faded away at the first hint of persecution or discomfort.

 

No, according to Enoch Era's reasoning, they should give financial aid to all, and especially to those who reject Christ:

"Would we be willing to love and serve our fellow countrymen even if they were to declare openly that they do not wish to be converted to Christianity? Would that not be the test of true love?"

 

This is part of the problem with attaching social issues to the gospel. The social gospel has been deadly no matter where it has been tried.

 

I have been getting quite a few notes from folks about what is going on there. In the Arab world (albeit not the same as the Muslim Indian areas have similarities) the Church is generally too quick to make compromise to avoid persecution. They killed Paul, because he was preaching the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel is offensive, though Mohammad bashing is a different thing all together.

In most Arab countries, it is common to even see the evangelical church trying to keep its members from sharing their faith.

The groups that have been contacting me have been with the Church of God there. They seem friendly, though I am not sure how much they are actually involved in the evangelism and just reporting on the persecutions.