IF A Church Does NOT Support Missions, isnt That Sin?

Personally, what difference does it make what the enitity that spreads the gospel is called?

Jesus called them "labourers"

Luke 10:2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.​

OK, so the Old School Primitive Baptists don't prefer to use mission boards, they do evanglelize their communities.​

I've been through and even lived briefly in Appalachia and it is indeed ripe unto harvest.​

Not only that they do evangelize abroad:​

Found in the public domain at http://oldschoolbaptist.org/DoctrineAndPractice.htm​

I don't know if this thread is/was aimed at them but they do take flak for this misunderstanding because they don't use mission boards but propogate directly from the local church.​

No, I am not PB, but would consider attending if there was a PB church here in WA within reasonable distance.​

Personally, I am all for missions and missionaries (whatever one calls them), whatever way possible, via mission boards, Awana, street preaching, neighborhood canvas, internet, telephone, telegraph, carrier pigeon, shouting from the rooftops, whatever means possible...​

There are three ways to support "missions" pray, go, give.
Most of us can do all three (we can "go" to our neighbors and family members).​

HankD​

 

That's exactly right.

We don't get to say, "Let's focus only on our communities." That is a blatant violation of our Commission.

 

Here's what I am driving at. Here in the area I live, drugs are running rampant(and I am sure it most other areas as well), and if a lot of the church's focus is on the cities in other countries, we are going to lose those in this area. If each church concentrated on their area across this nation, the church would be spreading the gospel. I have no problem with anyone doing missionary work, and I pray that God blesses their labor of love.