How Dare You....

We don't see a scriptural support for it. What I see going on with missionism as it is practiced also tells me it is wrong. If God places a burden on me to go to the ends of the earth, I trust I will go.

 

amity,

I know we are getting kind of away from the OP, but I am honestly curious about this. I can give you Scriptural support for financially supporting your pastor(s). It's the passages in the OT about not muzzling the ox that treads out the corn - also used in the NT by Paul when he considers the fact that he would have been perfectly within his rights to be supported financially by the churches he was ministering to. OTOH, if your church has a pastor who needs no support, as you do amity, than I certainly understand not giving him a full salary.

BUT, there definitely is scriptural support for salaried pastoral staffs.


However, what I really want to ask you about is what you mean by how missions are done today and what makes you think it is wrong. For one thing missions is done many different ways these days. So we can't really say that "it's done wrong" is a valid reason for not supporting any missionaries. I just want to find out what you mean..........

 

Just a quick question, annsni, and no disrespect or animosity meant here.
But, what is going to happen if a church does not go on "missions" ?
Will that stop the salvation of God's people ?
Is the salvation of God's people dependent on churches sending out missionaries ?

 

Note I said we DO give our pastor money, not a a regular salary, though. There is no "right" to a salary. The problem with missions is institutionalism.

 

Romans 10:14-15
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

:godisgood:

 

double post!

 

no, I know you said you give your pastor some money. I have no problem with the way your church in particular is doing your own business.....each local church is different and independent. The only thing is that I was saying its not wrong for other churches to give their pastors a full salary.

What do you mean by institutionalism? Maybe we should start a new thread and hash it out? (said kindly, I appreciate your willingness to talk and not get upset)

 

I always thought that was a command to the apostles, not the church.

Oh boy, I might be in trouble for saying that!:laugh:

 

None of the Bible was written to us today. Does that mean we apply none of its commands?

 

I knew I was in trouble!:laugh:

Actually, Paul's writings were written specifically for the NT church (us).

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't do mission work, I was just asking if that command was to the church or the apostles.

Please do not be angry with me.

 

well, the apostles were not the only ones there when Jesus said this. He was speaking to His disciples, the larger group of people who were His followers. It applies equally to anyone who is a follower of Christ.

If He only said it to the Apostles, and we then took it to mean it was only expected of the Apostles, than no one BUT the Apostles would have been required to spread the gospel. The gospel witness would have died out long ago if that were true, since the Apostles were all dead by the end of the 1st century.

 

I mean having man-made institutions added into the scriptural model.

There are a lot of different ways that can happen. Mission boards are only one example. Sunday schools. Incorporation. I am told that practically every church today is incorporated. These trends make a church into a bureaucracy, a business.

BTW, I tend to be suspicious of hirelings because they care not for the sheep. The ministry becomes a career.

Edit to say: Sometimes I think the part of my brain that censors what I say is broken. But there it is, I said it, and that is what I truly think, so I guess I will leave it. I think if a church is so big and so complex in its dealings that a minister becomes a administrator, that is too bad. A church should not become a business in any sense of the word.

 

well amity,

there are hundreds if not thousands of missionaries on the field today who do not use any sort of mission board at all. Also, some of the mission boards out there only serve as a help to the missionary rather than an authority over him. The mission board we are going with works along this model. We don't really like the idea of a mission board being over the missionary either, as we believe his authority ought to be God and he should be overseen by his local church, if any one.

mission boards like this are really a huge help in things like organizing financial support and paperwork. I understand the angst against it, but paperwork and such is a necessary hassle that we just have to live with in our day and age. Im talking about paperwork like visas, passports, certs of eligibility to enter a foreign country.....I could go on and on.....I know, I already have!

 

deletedeletedelete

 

Passports, no problem.

Entry visas. Residence visas. Taxes in two different countries. Health insurance. How to get funds from one country to another. Yeah, a missions board is a big help to a missionary.

There are a FEW missions boards (I speak from an IFB perspective here) that operate on the theory that they have authority over the missionary. The majority do not.

I doubt that there are 'thousands' of missionaries operating independently. Hundreds possibly. But I have seen many of them come.... and go. and IF they return again, they generally do so under a board. Never seen a board missionary leave and return independently though.

(Sorry if this is too far outside the OP.)

Mexdeaf, a missionary in Mexico

 

You know, my earlier answer was based on a mis-reading of the post. I do not support missionism attached to a church in any way, shape, form, or fashion. I will try to delete the post if I still can.