• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Are Mission Boards Biblical

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
In another thread Old Regular stated:
... Old School Baptist do not believe the church has the authority to establish non Biblical organizations, to control the spread of the gospel or ministers , such as ''Missionary Boards. ... (we) believe it should be under the direction of the Holy Ghost ...

You mentioned that the church should not establish a mission board
Is there a difference between a church sponsored mission board and an independent mission board?

If I understand correctly -Hardshells do not use mission boards at all.
If that is correct - than what kind of assistance can the missionary family expect on the field.

Granted - in the time of Paul - going to point B was no problem
But in this day and age - with international borders - political unrests, financial concerns, ect, ect, ect.
I see the assistance of a mission board invaluable. From training about the country he would go to, assisting in financial needs, and being accountable for finances, ect, ect
 

Squire Robertsson

Administrator
Administrator
As I understand it they look to a natural planting of churches across the geographic areas. So, a church within reach of the Mexican border would look south to daughter off a church.
 

old regular

Active Member
In another thread Old Regular stated:

You mentioned that the church should not establish a mission board
Is there a difference between a church sponsored mission board and an independent mission board?

If I understand correctly -Hardshells do not use mission boards at all.
If that is correct - than what kind of assistance can the missionary family expect on the field.

Granted - in the time of Paul - going to point B was no problem
But in this day and age - with international borders - political unrests, financial concerns, ect, ect, ect.
I see the assistance of a mission board invaluable. From training about the country he would go to, assisting in financial needs, and being accountable for finances, ect, ect
The early Baptist that came to America likewise had no Missionary Boards, they were used of God to establish Churches throughout the land. We have Elders overseas that felt led by the Spirit to go there and they did, some received help from their home church members. We have had brothers who came to this country, joined a Primitive Baptist Church and went back home as an ordained minister, preached the gospel back in their Native Country and established churches.
 

Squire Robertsson

Administrator
Administrator
IIRC, the first Baptist Mission Board was founded in the late 1780s to send William Carey to India. The boards were initially focused on supporting workers to the foreign field (India). In the US, home mission boards organized to support workers on the frontier.
 

old regular

Active Member
IIRC, the first Baptist Mission Board was founded in the late 1780s to send William Carey to India. The boards were initially focused on supporting workers to the foreign field (India). In the US, home mission boards organized to support workers on the frontier.
In the region where I am from the Baptist Churches were started by itinerant ministers. My Ancestors came from the Roaring River Church in North Carolina in 1781 and established the Indian Bottom Church in 1810 the Sandlick was an arm from the Indian Bottom1815 { Elder James Caudill, Elder James Webb, Stephen Caudill} This was the pattern as far back as we have the History . I have no knowledge of any Old School Baptist Churches being established by a Missionary Board. You may call Elders like Daniel Williams, Simeon Justice, William Saulsberry, Electious Thompson , Wilson Thompson , Squire Boone , Elijah Craig and such like '' Missionaries '' but they established Congregations using a Circuit Ride method. I have read in the History of a'' Board of Foreign Missions'' established on May 10th, 1845 and a ''North American Mission of 1874'' . There were donations which were made by some of the earlier Associations but they latter recanted participation in these new inventions Mission Boards , Sunday Schools {by donation and letters} these Boards were unknow in early Apostolic Times. The New Salem Association a large cluster of Churches and all her Correspondence declared a non fellowship , with Mission Boards, Sunday Schools, Auxiliaries, Secret Societies . They however expanded and had many large Churches among them. Frank Masters wrote them off, but his numbers were wrong. There are Old School Baptist . Missionary Boards have continued to be an item for debate among Baptist up to the current time period.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Marooncat79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I think so yea

they would be of like faith, mindset or doctrine

face it

I would never be a part of a oneness church or missions group, nor a United Methodist et Al.

you should agree with one you support
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Its a ridiculous proposition. No there arent any missions boards in scripture. The lack of them doesnt make it wrong. The fact that there have been men even in recent years that have gone into the field without support from a mission board doesnt prove its wrong either.


Further, the use of mission boards does not negate the work of the HS in the field. The down side to not having a mission board support is the missionary traveles home for extended periods of time to not work in the field but travel around and raise funds. Also without a board the missionary is always under a risk of losing support from a particular church because the new pastor has a new vision and that missionary isnt part of that vision.

The upside to having a board is the missionary doesnt have to leave the field
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
There are THREE types of mission boards among Baptists -

**CONVENTION mission board - where $$ from churches is pooled to support missionaries. The Board identifies the people, then distributes/controls the money and work. Usually they have an abundance of rules for each.
Advantage is no "deputation" and raising support; when approved, you simply go to field. If returning after xx years, Board supplies a temporary replacement. When on furlough, they actually can rest/regain health and be part of a local church and bring stability to family.
Disadvantage is missionary has no direct tie to churches. Missionary must toe-the-line of hierarchy telling them where and what to do. Convention board makes up standards, conduct, roles, and if you don't agree, can find yourself without money or ministry.

Both the Southern Baptists and Northern (American) Baptists have closely run and controlled "convention" boards of missions.

**FAITH mission board - where the individual missionary goes to churches to raise monthly support, board collects these in account (pay taxes, social security), and has general oversight of work and cooperation of missionaries and fields of endeavor.
Advantage is total freedom in support/levels, general field of ministry, and having close praying churches who are interested and know (from deputation) the missionary family and needs. Often this closeness allows life-long friendships, more earnest and focused prayers. Usually limited "control" of a mission agency over day-to-day life and ministry.
Disadvantage is missionary usually spends 3 years of the long "grind" of travel, deputation, raising support BEFORE day one on the mission field. Then on furlough, the supporting churches ALL would like a visit/personal time of report of ministry, so if one has 50 churches giving $50 or $100 a month to visit, an ENTIRE YEAR is spent of furlough in travel; not much "rest" or "normalcy" for family". Then back to field. Lack of funds is epidemic, churches dropping support or arguing over petty issues, isolation on the field with little/no interaction and less cooperation with other agencies.

There are literally hundreds of large and small agencies, some good quality work and some trying to usurp power/money and not meeting missionary's needs.

**LOCAL CHURCH mission board - where one church (or one city with 2-3 churches) collect/distribute $$ from its congregation.
Advantage is local church knows character/strengths of missionary in its own rank, so no deputation and no doctrinal training needed. Missionary should have formal training but then work in local church, gaining practical instruction. If missionary owns home, he can rent it out while overseas and still have retirement equity. I have fond memories of First Baptist Dallas that is SBC but shocked at the issues of the Convention missionaries (liberalism, lack of standards and ethics) so the church had xx families "will" their homes to the church so missionaries supported ONLY by the church could return home and live rent-free and be right by family and church home to truly R&R after years on foreign soil. I had the privilege of working on two houses for missionaries coming "home". But this is a large church that also has abandoned the SBC colleges for its own local-church training program (fully accredited BA/MA/MDiv)
Disadvantage of have one-source of income is that churches fluctuate in giving, pastors, even goals and missionary may be left high-and-dry. I had some horror stories for anyone interested in how a small local church opted to send 2 pastors to mission field, then ran out of money. Pastors at church were paid and those on the field had to borrow money to get back to USA.
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
In 1700-1840 USA, Baptists were often in smaller, regional conventions or associations. They were doctrinally-based (think New Hampshire Confession of Faith, Philadelphia Confession of Faith) and could have hundreds of churches. Once every THREE YEARS representatives from all these local associations met to hear and meet missionaries. They would have a large offering (or promise of support) and send missionaries for 3 years into the frontier of the US or jungles of Burma.

Sadly, the issue of abolition caused a great divide. While almost all the western world had abolished slavery or at least, like US, the slave trade from Africa, missionaries in the USA could still hold slaves. One can imagine a Baptist group of churches in Buffalo NY would not want to pool money to send a missionary from Mobile AL who would take slaves with him to the mission field. The rancor grew to the dividing point, when southern Baptist groups saw their missionaries NOT getting $$ (since some owned slaves) yet their money was going unfettered to Yankee missionaries who did not own slaves/

In 1845 the Southern associations banded together into a Southern Baptist Convention to support their own missionaries. Southern State conventions did the same founding schools and seminaries. Northern Baptists, far fewer in number, did the same. So there were TWO CONVENTIONS supporting missionaries.

Odd fact: Northern Baptist Convention was strong on anti-slavery but more open to doctrinal diversity (leading to encroaching liberalism and godless evolution in later part of 1800's as many pastors were trained in uber-liberal schools/seminaries in Europe. Southern Baptist Convention was weak on slavery (even after the Late Great Unpleasantness of 1861-65) pushing blacks to form their own groups and not integrating, but stronger and more fundamental in doctrine and training in small Baptist colleges and seminaries.

Fundamental Baptists sought to control the Northern Baptist Convention (lost in 1921), then formed a Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission and later national association (lost in 1968). Today many northern Baptist churches are very liberal at best. Fundamental Baptists had strong influence in the Southern Baptist Convention, introducing Baptist Faith & Message in 1925 to retain doctrine of convention. Today the SBC still "fights" over fundamental/conservative control but nothing akin to what happened in the North.
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Sorry to give a history lesson. But those who do not learn the lessons of history may not exactly "repeat" it, but will surely be impacted by the echoes.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Excellent recap, Dr Bob-

a lot of IFB's will only give the Disadvantage of the convention and only the advantages of IFB mission boards.
AS DR Bob -pointed out that there are D's and A;s of Both.

I would like to point out - that in our association - we have had several SBC missionaries come to our churches and Association meetings. - So we do get to know them on a personal basis.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It's amazing that Christianity spread the way it did before the invention of 'missionary boards'. How could it have done so without man's help?
 

Squire Robertsson

Administrator
Administrator
Yes, Christianity grew. But it exploded among English speaking Baptists after the formation of the first foreign mission board in the 1780s
It's amazing that Christianity spread the way it did before the invention of 'missionary boards'. How could it have done so without man's help?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
In another thread Old Regular stated:

You mentioned that the church should not establish a mission board
Is there a difference between a church sponsored mission board and an independent mission board?

If I understand correctly -Hardshells do not use mission boards at all.
If that is correct - than what kind of assistance can the missionary family expect on the field.

Granted - in the time of Paul - going to point B was no problem
But in this day and age - with international borders - political unrests, financial concerns, ect, ect, ect.
I see the assistance of a mission board invaluable. From training about the country he would go to, assisting in financial needs, and being accountable for finances, ect, ect
Even in Paul's day evangelists relied on churches as a collective rather than a single church. But there is no clear cut answer. Unfortunately we are men and things that should not become political often do.

I think the right question is "are mission boards unbilical?".
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
I love the LARGE church supporting 80+ missionaries full-time. But is that really able to be duplicated a thousand times? Doubt it.

My circle of independent Baptists use "Faith" boards and support individual missionaries to some degree ($1200-$3600 a year each) in cooperation with other churches.

One of the "Faith" boards - 1000+ missionaries in 84 countries (3000 churches give support + 20,000 individuals give) - related how bad finances look right now for many missionaries.

No matter what missionary/mission agency you think is best bang-for-the-buck, it would behoove each of us to give generously
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
I think the right question is "are mission boards unbiblical?"

That is the question - is xyz unbiblical - most pastors ask a hundred times about a hundred issues not found in the Bible (church bulletins, air conditioning, bus ministry, youth pastors, musical instruments et al). Lots of issues NOT in the Bible but does that make them UNbiblical?

The regulative principle says what we do MUST be found in Scripture (expressly stated or directly implied) and prohibit what isn't. But face it; must of what we do in the church in NOT worship and is just practical choices. If my church wants to give $$ to a mission agency supporting a work or a person, the principle is right. Giving to support God's work/worship. HOW that is implemented is not the principle, just practical method
 

old regular

Active Member
The Rise of the Modern Mission System Among the Baptists

Since formal opposition to doctrinal and practical departures from the faith of the Church would not occur until after the heresy has become publicly manifested, the oft-repeated charge that the Baptists had not opposed missionary operations until near the end of the eighteenth century, is ridiculous. The new system was not introduced, anywhere in the world, until 1792, in England. In America, the equivalent of this system was introduced about twenty-two years later, and faced opposition nearly as soon as it made its existence known.

Aside from the privations of the new country and dangers from both Indians and wild beasts, the question of modern "foreign missions" was the greatest trial to face the Baptists after their arrival in Illinois. The Baptists had always claimed to be a missionary people, according to the Bible design, but they had never been a people governed by or operating through "BOARDS," or separate "SOCIETIES." Through all the centuries of their existence, the Baptists had never joined with other denominations in their men-made schemes to proselyte the heathen, so-called. But trouble began, on October 2, 1792, with the formation of the FIRST Baptist missionary society in the world, in the "back parlor of Beebe Wallis" in Kettering, England, by Andrew Fuller (consistent with his heretical views on the atonement, which were opposed by contemporary John Gill) and William Carey, in the Northamptonshire Association. Missionaries from this English breed, William Carey and William Ward, converted and baptized Luther Rice and Adoniram Judson, in the fall of 1812, at Calcutta, India, (Judson and Rice were natives of Massachusetts, but had been serving as Congregationalist missionaries). But rather than uniting with the English Baptist Mission, Luther Rice soon returned to America to form a similar Society. On May 18, 1814, he organized the Baptist Triennial Convention, at Philadelphia, through delegates from various places. The administrative board of this General Convention was called the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions. Correspondence was sought with about one hundred Baptist associations, many of which Luther Rice visited personally, raising funds by collections wherever he was allowed to do so. Meanwhile, Judson removed to Rangoon, Burma, and was soon found under the patronage of this Baptist Board of Foreign Missions for the United States.

As the activities of this Board became known, and as great numbers of Baptists in New England and the eastern states fell victim to it, the strong opposition of sound Baptists began to be expressed more and more publicly. Elder George Tillman, and others, opposed Luther Rice's request for correspondence with the Concord Association of Tennessee, in 1815, the first year Rice began to seek support for the Board. Elder Daniel Parker opposed it again, the following year in the same association; and in 1817, Parker confronted Rice, face to face, publicly, at the Concord Association. Later that year, Parker moved to southeastern Illinois, and united with the Lamotte Church, and became pastor of Little Village Church, a short distance south of his new home. In 1818, Little Village Church presented a query to the Wabash District Association, to gain the voice of the churches as to whether the modern mission system was scriptural.

The modern mission system was opposed in other places as well. The New River Association of Virginia is one such example, as their minutes for 1816 show: "Item 12th. A request from Bethel Church for opening a regular correspondence with the Board of Foreign Missions - after considerable altercation, finding it could not be carried into effect, liberty was obtained to withdraw the request." - Minutes of the New River Association, 1816 fall session, held at Bethel meetinghouse, Wythe County, Virginia, October 1816.

In 1819 and 1820, two relatively short books or treatises were written, published and widely distributed, which had great influence on the Baptists on the western frontier, on this subject. Both books are still available, and show the true position taken, at the very time of the conflict on this subject, by those who opposed the setting up of a Missionary System, including the "Baptist Board of Foreign Missions," and the "Home Mission Society."

The first, Thoughts on Missions, by Elder John Taylor, of Frankfort, Kentucky, published in 1819, is a vivid account, by an eye witness, of the means and measures employed by Luther Rice. Taylor also wrote A History of Ten Churches, etc., in which is given his valuable account of the beginning and progress of the Great Revival of 1800. Here is illustrated the amazing contrast between a true spiritual revival, based on the preaching of salvation by grace, true repentance, and the work of the Spirit, as opposed to a revival based on the human efforts of the modern mission system which Taylor opposed! In 1827, Taylor also wrote a book describing the origin of the Campbellite heresy and system which divided the Baptist Church again, to which he had been a first-hand witness.

The second work opposing the modern mission system, A Public Address to the Baptist Society, and Friends of Religion in General, on the Principle and Practice of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions for the United States of America, by Elder Daniel Parker, of Illinois, published in 1820, was one of the most influential books ever written by a Baptist in the midwest. In 1823 Parker issued another pamphlet, called Plain Truth, and in 1824, a third, called The Author's Defense, as the battle over the modern mission system intensified.

These books struck a death-blow at the very existence of the modern mission work: the associations which had at first begun to correspond with this Baptist Board of Foreign Missions "smelled the New England rat," and not only severed correspondence, but also declared non-fellowship for it. Many other Associations, as they were organized, followed their example. The missionary response to these books, and to the widespread opposition to their measures, came in the form of a General Circular Letter to the Baptists of All Parties, written by John Mason Peck, and approved by the General Convention which met at Winchester, Illinois, in 1832. To read this Circular, Click here .
John Mason Peck: The Leading Advocate of Modern Missions
The chief advocate of the new system of "foreign missions," in Illinois, was Rev. John Mason Peck, a Connecticut yankee, and a close cohort of Rev. Luther Rice. Peck's journals were published posthumously as his Memoirs, by Rufus Babcock, another contemporary. They reveal the nature of his activities among the Baptists in Illinois and Missouri. He was a hireling of the Board system, a child of missionary societies in New York and Massachusetts; and had authority to offer monetary support of those societies, to men who were willing to preach the "gospel" for hire. Peck came to the St. Louis, Mo./Alton, Ill., area in December 1817. Though naturally gifted, well educated and a polished speaker, he signally failed to convert the existing Baptist churches in the Illinois Association, or its correspondence, to his missionary views; and was therefore compelled to start a so-called Baptist work virtually "from scratch," building it on excluded members from orderly Illinois Baptist churches, and immigrants who had ties with the mission system in the east, and other places.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
The early Baptist that came to America likewise had no Missionary Boards, they were used of God to establish Churches throughout the land. ....

What Baptists came to America to start churches?

Didn't the founder of the first Baptist church in America; come from Boston?
And he wasn't even a Baptist - at least in name!
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Reading a totally different view of history of missions from the perspective of Old Regular and the "primitive" churches was very enlightening. It is that of a small sect of Baptist churches in the USA and appreciate the information he shared.

Many years ago, in my early doctoral work I wrote a brief historical sketch of Baptists in Wisconsin. Men and organizations (condemned in the Primitive groups record) were used mightily of God to reach out into the wilderness of this state to plant churches. I now live 9 miles from where the first baptism of believers in Wisconsin took place. I thank God for John Mason Peck and the Illinois band of preachers who expanded their mission work into this territory.
 
Top