When did Jesus change His instruction for evangelism?

That is ridiculous. You have completely misrepresented this. No one "build health clinics or schools in order to convince the lost souls how great Christianity is" they, like Christ, do it to show the love of God. Jesus most often dealt with physical issues first. Further, the true gospel is still being preached and having built a clinic doesn't diminish it.

It took great restraint to leave my post at this point.

 

As a former missionary (33 years in Japan) who has visited various mission fields and now teaches missions in a Bible college, I object. In some countries it is absolutely necessary to set up shop and stay in one place for awhile--Buddhist and Muslim countries especially. The instructions of Christ to His missionaries-in-training are not part of the Great Commission.

First of all, Dr. Luke traveled with Paul on his missionary trips. Do you honestly think that Luke never treated anyone but Paul and his team? Christ healed anyone anywhere, and I believe Luke did too. Showing love by healing the body is an excellent way to reach the soul.

I have a medical missionary friend to a Muslim majority country who has planted a church and still runs a hospital. They have branch churches being planted, and preach the Gospel in all the villages round about. When I was there the national pastor baptized 46 people. I preached to 700 or so former Muslims and Hindus.

 

Wesley, are there those who embrace Christianity while it "wears it's silver slippers"? Certainly. Jesus had those who followed Him only for the loves and fishes. I daresay that only a minority of people who hear the Gospel are truly converted. I agree with John of Japan. Build schools. Build hospitals. Purify water. Increase crop production. Teach English. Take advantage of the opportunities presented in order to preach Christ, no matter how rich or lean the crop.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Consider this man. If Chau had not been killed, he still would not have been able to communicate with the tribe. He could not have preached the Gospel to them without learning the language. The command to preach the Gospel to them would have thus required years of residence.

To learn an unwritten language like theirs would have taken him many years of residence. Then they would have had no Bible, so he would have had to translate the Bible. To reach a tribe like this often takes as long as 20 years or so of residence.

P. S. Just in case someone says, "Just teach them English...."

 

I just noticed that you say "teach them English." Just so you know, my comment about "Teach them English" in #5 was not directed at your post, but at those who think you can win folks to Christ cross-culturally by teaching them English instead of learning their language.

 

I gotcha. I was thinking more about teaching English as a second language. This how some "missionaries" I know got into China.

 

1Co 9:19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.
1Co 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
1Co 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
1Co 9:23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

 

I think the OP has hit upon a valid point that is ofttimes missing in the conversation about the modern mission field in the church today. And it is this: that the power of the Gospel message lies completely independent from any humanitarian effort we may expend upon the various unreached people groups of the world. Showing them the love of God by building schools, clinics, improving water sources, better farming methods, basic animal husbandry etc, may be a somewhat effective evangelistic tool to reach and minister to these groups, yet God's hand to save cannot be made to move by the mere presence of any of these things. As another poster has observed, the percentage of true conversions among these peoples is no greater than any other, materially well-off group. And rightly so, for salvation was never tied to a person's earthly circumstances.

Somehow, it seems that many in the mission field have come to think the efficacy of God's truth is either related or at least enhanced by a person's health and well-being. Indebt the poor to yourself by treating their ailments, digging the village well, setting up a farming cooperative with GMO seeds and the like, and poof! - you will then have willing ears eager for whatever else you have to say about their spiritual state. What better way to get "in" with them, right? Unfortunately, this method tends to align and pair the message of reconciliation with that of their earthly estate via our material and technological advances. Sure, the freedom from preventable/ treatable diseases, the ability to produce food, access to clean water, safe shelter and the like may all be wonderful things to bestow upon the world, but this is far removed from the spiritual mandates of the Great Commission. The Church was not made to be the material benefactor to the poor of the world, but the spiritual benefactor to a world (both rich and poor) in desperate need of truth. We must be very careful not to intertwine the two.

 

I agree with you that charity is not evangelism and that our first duty is to give the Gospel. But please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is a very complex issue, not easily solved on a thread like this. Now, when charity is called "missions," I strongly disagree. But when charity is used to open a door for the Gospel, I'm all for that. (I have heard that this is what Samaritan's Purse does.) As I've stated already, Luke traveled with Paul, so at a minimum medical missions is completely Biblical.

I believe that each ministry or missionary doing "charity" must be judged on its own merits. If they are digging wells and then leaving without reaching the people, that's not missions and not fulfilling the Great Commission. However, if the clear goal is giving the Gospel while digging wells, that can be very productive.

Other considerations:

1. William Carey successfully fighting suttee in India
2. David Livingstone successfully fighting slavery in Africa
3. Teaching a jungle tribal people basic health standards as the missionary learns the language
4. Having a literacy program while the missionary translates the Bible, because how can people grow in the Lord without the Bible?
5. Using English teaching, computer expertise, etc., as a "platform" to get into what would normally be a "closed country"

 

Who is it that claims it does?

 

Wesley left out the context of the passage from Mark in his OP. The relevant verses are included here:

(Mark 6:7-12) And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats. And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. And they went out, and preached that men should repent. (KJV)

Note:
1. It was the 12. The Great Commission was given to all believers.
2. They were all single. Christ never advocated leaving your family behind to go to a mission field. You can't obey these commands if your family goes with you.
3. Their message was simply "that men should repent," quite similar to Jonah's OT preaching. Christ had not yet died and risen, so their message was not technically the Gospel.
4. Wesley does not mention the Great Commission in Matt. 28:18-20. It is impossible to obey Matthew's Commission without abiding in one place for a while--maybe even years.

P. S. I suppose it's too much to hope that Wesley will return to his thread and answer my points. I'm jealous. He answered Revmitchell (sort of), but not me (the former missionary).

 

Don't have time to say much right now. Glad you finally got on again, but now you are trying to make this about my own ministry! Shame on you. I've seen God do some wonderful miracles, but the greatest of these is the many Japanese God saved. But I don't answer to you, but to God.

 

Thank you for the gracious apology.

Now, please comment on my point that the Great Commission in Matthew 28. It says to teach converts all that Jesus taught. How can the missionary do that without staying in one place for awhile. I taught in two different Bible schools in Japan at different times to prepare young Japanese pastors and believers. That to me is obeying the Great Commission in Matthew, teaching what Jesus taught. Do you disagree?