Missions, part 1

I hope to have a lot more discussion on missions in the future. But this is something from what we covered in Sunday school.

1. Leaving the field because of danger

Question: Is there ever a time when the missionary should leave the field because of physical danger?

- According to one person who is given a great amount of weight in some missions circles, it is cowardice to ever leave the field because of physical danger.

Answer: let’s look at Paul’s travels.
9:23-25 – A plan was made to kill Paul, but it became known to him, and his disciples helped him escape over the wall.
- It was the disciples who helped him escape.
9:29-30 – In Jerusalem, the Hellenistic Jews were going to kill Paul, but the brethren brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away.
- Again, it was the brethren who helped him escape, not Paul just sneaking off in the night. 13:50 – In Pisidian Antioch, the Jews stirred up the powerful people of the city to instigate a persecution against Paul and Barnabas.
- In this case, it was the ungodly people who drove Paul out of the city; we don’t know what the persecution was; it was the people, not Paul, who decided when he would leave.
14:5 – In Iconium, the people were going to “mistreat and stone” Paul and Barnabas, but they left quickly before it could happen.
- Interestingly, this time, Paul and Barnabas left completely of their own accord without anyone helping or ordering them to.
14:9 – In Lystra, Paul was stoned because of the instigation by the Jews from elsewhere.
- In this case, Paul went back into the city after being stoned, and then went to the next city. Granted, maybe he just needed to rest, but it also could show that he was not worried.
14:21-22 – As a side note, Paul went back to the cities where he had been attacked in order to strengthen the brethren.
16:22-24 – In Philippi, Paul and Silas were beaten and thrown into prison.
- The interesting thing about this situation is that Paul didn’t mention their citizenship until after the beating and jail time (v. 37).
17:10 – In Thessalonica, a mob was after Paul and Silas, but the believers sent them away at night.
17:14 – In Berea, the brethren conducted Paul out of the city and brought him to the next place of ministry.
19:30-31 – In Ephesus, some of Paul’s companions were seized by a mob, but the believers kept him from entering to try to help them.
20:3 – As Paul was planning to leave Greece for Syria, he changed his planned trip and went overland instead of by sea.
20:22-24 – As a side note, Paul was obviously not afraid of trials because he went to Jerusalem knowing that trials awaited him.
- In this case, he said that he was “bound in spirit,” perhaps meaning that he knew somehow that it was God’s will and so was willing to go through with it (much like Christ in the Garden).
22:24-25 – In Jerusalem, Paul was about to be scourged, but before it could be done, he invoked his right as a Roman citizen.
- This scourging was not really because of the Gospel, but rather a means to try to get the “truth” out of Paul. It would not really have benefited the Gospel message.
23:16 ff – A plot was hatched to kill Paul, but when he was told of it, he sought and received protection from the Romans.

2. Knowing the will of God

Question: What about open doors?

Answer 1: Acts 16:6-7

Answer 2: Other uses of “open door” in the NT

- Acts 14:27

- I Cor. 16:9

Question: What about peace?

Answer 1: First, we must realize that peace is an emotion, and therefore can only be used when it is grounded on truth; when emotion supersedes truth, error and sin are the result.

Answer 2: II Cor. 2:12 – Because Paul had no rest in his spirit, he left an open door to go find Titus and see what he had to report about the Corinthian church.

3. Financial Support for the missionary

Question: Supporting nationals over Americans

Chapell, Bryan. 1&2 Timothy and Titus. p. 313. Refers to a “missionary motive” that is described as “the expectation that others need to do us favors and serve us because we are ‘sacrificing our lives’ for Jesus.”

- It seems to be increasingly popular here in the States to support foreign nationals rather than American missionaries. The reasons given are usually one or more of the following: 1) the national can start work immediately (not needing time to learn the language, culture, etc.), 2) the national only needs part of the support an American does (e.g. $3000 p/year as opposed to $40,000 p/year), and 3) the national can go places where an American can’t.

Answer:

- In answer to each of those: 1) True, the national does not need the extra time to get set up; Is this a valid excuse though, since we’re talking about one year? 2) True, the national only needs a fraction of the support an American does; but the American missionary has to fly back to see his churches as well as build the building [though some missionaries are blessed with having their outfit-and-passage as well as building funds completely paid for]; 3) False, there have been times where being an American has actually opened doors for us; not always, but sometimes.

- I have seen two groups of people on the mission field. My parents have sacrificed a great deal for the ministry, but I have also seen a great amount of waste and laziness on the part of missionaries.

- Having more than the nationals does not necessarily embitter them to you. We would invite them over to our house and let them use our tools and other things. Rather than making them bitter, it showed that we loved them.
- From personal experience, when a national receives support from America, he is seen as a sell-out and is actually more despised than anything.
- In the end, we are doing what was done in the Crusades; rather than going ourselves, we are paying others to do the work for us. Why should I go into missions when the churches could take that money and support ten nationals? Why should I go into missions when I could stay here and live a fairly comfortable life and give enough to support one, or maybe even two, nationals?

Question: Using American funds to build the churches

- It was once said to me, by someone who had taken a missions class, that the nationals should be solely responsible for building their own buildings, without aid from the US.

Answer:

- Here in the US, we are the “have’s” of the Christian world; we have resources and money that other countries only dream about; in the NT times, we would be the wealthy believers who sent to help the poor of Jerusalem (Acts and throughout the Pauline Epistles speak of this [esp. II Cor. 8-9]).
- What does a congregation do when they can’t go out into the jungle and just get grass and logs to build a building? What do they do when inflation is so bad that they would loose 90% of their savings in the course of a year due to inflation? What do the nationals do when they are just barely able to feed themselves and give a little bit in the offering?
- In the churches my family has started, we used American funds, whether ours or from donations, to buy the land and the construction materials; the labor was done almost exclusively by us and the people of the church. That alone saved us almost 50% of the cost of construction.