I am unashamedly an independent fundamental Baptist pastor, but that does not mean that I am “proud” of every other independent fundamental Baptist pastor or church. To be honest, there are some which I know that are such a poor testimony that being associated with them causes me great distress. There are also some that claim they are IFB standing on sound doctrine but do not stand where I stand, but instead stand for a very intolerant or wrong “doctrine.”
For instance, I openly stand for the King James as the preserved word of God in the English language, yet I really would like to distance myself from those which say people can ONLY get saved by the King James. And yes, unfortunately there are a few which truly believe this. Let me add that it is not the version of the Bible that saves, but the grace of Almighty God.
As another example, I stand against sin of all kinds, but would really like to see Westboro Baptist Church stay out of the headlines because of their hateful tone. Also I believe that masking sin in the church is wrong. This would include things such as child abuse, leadership immorality, or financial failures. Yet in some IFB churches you never openly question the pastor even if he is guilty of immorality and in some places you never go to authorities when the church’s reputation is on the line. Folks, sin is sin and needs to be dealt with!
That being said, we are INDEPENDENT fundamental Baptists and nothing the other church/pastor does should sway us from standing where we ought to stand. We will give account to God for what we do and not what the other person does. That is clear in Scripture (Romans 14:12).
But the question is does a supporting pastor or church have the right to question every missionary they support as if they were out of their church? Think about it. How many churches expect the missionary that came to their church to do everything their church would do? How many pastors expect the missionary they support to do exactly the same kind of work being done in the supporting church?
Let me give an example, a supporting church is actively involved in door to door evangelism. They knock on every door in their community several times each year. They see numerous decisions made at the door each week and are adding to their church regularly. That church is going to assume that “their” missionaries can/should do something similar in their foreign field. And why not? The supporting church sees the fruit of their labor, why shouldn’t the missionary?
Here is another example. A supporting church immediately baptizes their converts within a week or two of a salvation decision. That church sees it as the net nature step after conversion and makes that discussion part of the salvation discussion right up front. The supporting church baptizes every week or so because of the should being led to Christ at the door each week, and they expect the same from their missionaries too. And why not? They are seeing it work, so why shouldn’t the missionary?
So now comes a prayer letter from the missionary they support and no one has been saved, no one has been baptized, and not one person has united with the missionary church. Because of what is going on in their church the supporting church and pastor begin to question the ability and work ethic of the missionary, but they give them a few more months to show grace. Time passes and more prayer letters come and still no visible results. So the pastor contacts the missionary and asks for a reason for the lack of results. The missionary tries to explain what he is doing on the field as far as ministry is concerned in an attempt to justify his ministry to the supporting pastor. Now I am going to end the illustration there and let the Holy Spirit finish it in your heart as to whether the church should continue to support that missionary or not. But the point I want to make is - Does the supporting church really have the right to hold every missionary accountable but questioning their ministry or results?
First let me say that every church/pastor will give account for their stewardship of God’s resources and so we must be sure to support works we know God is pleased with. But does that justify supporting churches that doubt the ability and work ethic of their missionary just because the results are not the same?
In my first example the supporting church assumes that every country allows knocking on doors, yet there are countries that door to door is illegal and in many more it is not culturally accepted to just go up and knock on a stranger’s door. And the last time I checked my Bible, there was not one verse that commands missionaries to “knock on doors.” Now before you lynch me by saying “The early church went house to house” (Acts 20:20), let’s clarify a few things. The early churches’ greatest works were not done door to door, as that could be argued that they went door to door within the believer’s homes teaching doctrine, but in the synagogues of the Jewish world (Mark 1:21; 3:1; Luke 4:16; Acts 13:14; 17:10; 18:4, 19; 19:8). Now mind you I believe in door ti door evangelism too, but in some countries it is not possible and in some countries is even grounds for immediate deportation of the missionary. Yet we often feel if it’s not done there the way we do it here, then it’s not going to work.
In my second example about baptism, we need to remember that some cultures, such as in India, the river is their god and being baptized is to beginning of isolation from everything and everyone from the past. It is, in some cultures, the moment you disown your family. Thus baptism for some is a life altering decision that requires time and forethought. Yes, there are many occasions in the Bible where people were immediately baptized after salvation such as Acts 8:36-18. But also realize that Jesus was not baptized until He was ready to begin His earthly ministry.
So does a supporting church have the right to directly question every missionary who does not do things the way they do them? Another way of putting this is asking if every missionary is “sent out” of every supporting church, are they accountable to every supporting church, or are they sent out of and accountable just to their “home” church? Let’s think about that through Scripture first. Who sent out Paul and Silas? Ultimately the Lord did, but He did so through the church at Antioch (Acts 13). These men were supported by many people and churches but they answered directly to the church at Antioch. The Antioch church was their sending group and their accountability structure. To the best of my knowledge not one other church challenged their work as they seemingly did work solely through the church at Antioch.
My point is that we are each going to give account to our Lord independently of what others say or do. So if a church/pastor feels that every missionary MUST do as they do, then they are free to do such and will give that account based on their conscience. But if a church/pastor recognizes that not every one of “their” missionaries are actually “their’s” but sent from another church and that missionary is actually accountable to that church first, then maybe supporting churches should do more to work through the “home” church instead of just bypassing them.
If you feel “your” missionary is not doing the work you feel they should, contact their sending church. If you see that a missionary is not seeing the results you are at home, then maybe go over to their field and see if you can help them. But let’s stop treating our missionaries as if they are employees of our church when they are sent and called workers of the Lord sent out by another church which we are helping.
No comments:
Post a Comment