Missions and flavors

"tasteful", "flavor" Sounds good! Where'd you cook that up? ok.....sorry



Of course Im IFB, and IFB is HUGE on missions. Let me tell ya though, I think maybe there's a misperception about what we mean by missions. IFB, and I daresay ABC too, means sending gospel-spreading, church-planting and church-growing people out in order to start and/ur support a church on the field. When some people say "missions" they envision more of a compound or a medical clinic passing out pharmaceuticals, or food pantries feeding people. Then again, maybe I just really hope that none of my CHristian brethren could actually be anti-missions..........


We also believe that the great commission is for today and directed towards every believer. It is our duty to be spreading God's Word to those who have not heard it, thus it is a foundational work of each local church to be actively engaged in sending missionaries.

 

I'm SBC, and we also support missions.

I think we also need to remember that missions doesn't always take place "somewhere out there." Missions also needs to take place in our own neighborhoods - "right here."

 

Is the idea of making "missions" a kind of sub-division of "spreading the gospel" really biblical? I don't think so. The need for salvation is the same whether the unsaved sinner lives in Wyoming, Sydney, or Madras, whether in the street where I live, or on the other side of the world.

Is your suggestion that baptist churches holding to the "Doctrines of Grace" are somehow against spreading the gospel? Or perhaps I am reading too much into your words about free will in your answer 2.

Anyway, my answers would be:

1) I am in a baptist church that holds to the doctrines of grace, and fully supports missions.
2) We hold that the great commission is for us today. We also believe that God through his Sovereignty has allowed us (remember He can do anything He wants) to have a part in the matter of bringing the gospel to sinners, though the outcome is His work. (God calls us to be faithful not successful in sharing Christ, for God alone opens the heart of man.)
This of course means that it is our responsibility to reach the world to tell others about Christ... hence ... missions.​

"Missions" therefore is not something only to be done by para-church "missionary societies". I mentioned on a different thread that our church supports Grace Baptist Mission, which is not a "missionary society" in the usual sense, but rather exists to help local churches fulfil their missionary responsibilities. This includes helping churches prepare someone for a particular sphere of service, and is not merely financial. Grace Baptist Mission has a web site, at http://www.gbm.org.uk/ There, you will see the heading:

Grace Baptist Mission
Helping Churches to Support and Care for their Missionaries Worldwide​

Not sure what "ABC" is (American Baptist Church, perhaps?)

 

David,

what do you mean by "making missions a kind of sub-division of spreading the gospel"?


Also, David, you seem to be coming from the mindset of what "missions" came to mean for awhile back in the "old days"('30s, '40s?). I absolutely believe that this most likely is because most of us here are from an American perspective and you are speaking from an Englander's perspective. Today the vast majority of our mission boards are exactly as you described Grace Baptist Missions. Im not even sure I fully understand what you mean by a "missionary society" anymore.

I know the way IFBs typically do it now is to have a local church be the sending church of a missionary, with a mission board acting as a clearinghouse and offering some missionary-specific training, as well as support with anything the individual feels he needs help in. Sometimes this might mean financial planning, handling the distribution of the prayer letters, organizing paperwork, etc. With us the mission boards are simply an aid to our missionaries. It is our churches which are sending these missionaries out.

 

I have never come across a Baptist church that is not all out for missions. Jesus commanded that we go into ALL the world and preach the gospel.

 

Sorry bapmom, I wasn't very clear. I meant that it seems to me that some people draw a distinction between "missions" and evangelism. Perhaps they think of "missions" as involving going to other countries, perhaps learning another language. What I meant was that I can see no biblical case for separating the two - they are just two different words for the same thing.

I'm sure you are right about the two perspectives (American and English) being different. (That could well be the case with a lot of subjects discussed on the Board, so please forgive me if any of my messages have caused misunderstanding to Americans because of this). In the UK, the term "missionary society" has come to refer to an organisation separate from the local churches. These Societies, not the church, decided such things as who would become a missionary.

That is really encouraging to hear. It is not usually so here. One particular missionary society (I won't name it) talks on its web site about "church-based missionary work", but it sees this as "a 'Society X' Missionary appointed to work alongside a local church as an evangelist."

Grace Baptist Mission is different, as I said before.

Thank you very much for making the American situation clearer for me.

 

David,

Thank you, Im much clearer on where you are coming from now. I would place evangelism and missions in the same category too, although I don't know that Id say they are synonyms. Id put evangelism under missions....thats certainly true. But missions is a little broader, because it involves starting new churches and discipling the converts afterwards. Then growing that church until it can stand on its own. Ive come now to like the idea of the missionary pastor staying at that one church and becoming the permanent pastor there, teaching and training nationals to go out and tell the gospel.

glad I could help....you cleared things up for me, too.

 

I was both surprised and disappointed to learn that there are Baptist who don't believe in or support missions.

 

the idea which started all this was that it is not the church's role to carry out missionary work....but rather the individual's role. Before this came up here on the BB I had never ever heard of the idea that the church is only for worship and fellowship, especially the idea that there is no Biblical support for churches engaging in sending and supporting missionaries.

I hope Im not too far afield of TinyTim's OP, but what are some Biblical supports for or against this viewpoint?

 

In Acts 13 Paul and Barnabas were clearly sent from the church in Antioch. They didn't go independent of the church.

 

Tim,
In addition to Acts 13 mentioned above, I believe Philippians 1:7 also teaches us about churches supporting missionaries. In this verse it says that the members of the church in Philippi were "partakers" of Paul's grace. In my opinion that would indicate that they partnered with him on his mission trip, and supported him. Probably with both, prayers, encouragement's, and financially. Just like we do today with missionaries from our local churches.

 

I think you statement is a little strong. Don't you think if that were the case that 2/3 of them would not be dead or dying? I have never seen an alive group of people who were serious about their faith who were not winning people to Christ.

A lot of churches will say they are serious about missions but too often missions is viewed as somewhere else and someone else who goes. Missions begins in our back yard.

 

Someone say it. It is the Primitive Baptists who do not believe in evangelism or missions. Therefore they are never cursed for the cause of Christ, never have doors slammed in their face, never spend time on their knees praying for souls to be saved. They do not have scars on either their body nor their heart from witnessing for Christ. They do not sacrifice for the Gospel since they think God can save folk without the Gospel. They do not cross the street to witness for Christ, much less the oceans.

When they reach Heaven and the Apostle Paul (or Adoniram Judson or William Carey or some other faithful missionary) asks them, "Where are your scars suffered for Jesus Christ?" they will quietly bow their heads and slip away in embarrassment. It is a sad version of the Baptist faith.

I have a Japanese couple in my church whose house was once burned down for their testimony for Jesus Christ. I think I'll hang around them instead.

 

There are no Biblical supports against the view. It exists only among the Primitive Baptists with their "anti-missionism" ("missionism" being an old term only used by them).

The Bible clearly pictures churches supporting missions, such as the Philippian church which supported Paul (Phil. 4:15-19). Note that the promise for God to supply all our needs is connected with missionary support in this passage.

 

Thanks Brother Tim. Don't have time right now to contribute there. I did drop a post to john (johnp is it?) there, but he never answered.

God bless.