You are not a missionary
Sorry to burst your bubble, but
no, you are not a missionary. I know, I hear the same nonstop message as you on
Christian radio, from the pulpit, in Bible class …
- We’re all missionaries because we’ve all been called to share the gospel!
- Let’s pray for our missionaries. And remember that all of us are missionaries!
- God has called all of us to be missionaries wherever we are!
But it simply isn’t true. It’s an abuse of the English language borne out of ignorance, pride, and guilt.
mis·sion·ar·y /ˈmiSHəˌnerē/ – noun – a member of a religious group who is sent away from their home in order to promote faith or provide services.
You can stretch the definition to include all Christians – and that’s exactly what is commonly done. We’ve all been “sent” by Jesus to promote the Christian faith – so we’re all missionaries, right?
Wrong. A missionary, by definition, is someone who is sent away from their home. I live in Ohio. No one sent me away from Ohio to share the Gospel. I am not a missionary. If you live in the USA, you are not a missionary – your home is in the USA, and you still live in the USA, and you are not a missionary.
If you claim that all Christians are missionaries, why not say that all Christians are pastors? After all, we’re all called to “preach” the gospel and to care for other Christians! Why not say that all Christians are ministers of music? After all, we’re all called to praise the Lord through song! Why not say that all Christians are professors of theology? After all, we’re all called to study God’s word and to share our insights with others! The list can go on and on and on … we’re all pastors, we’re all ministers of music, we’re all professors of theology, we’re all therapists, we’re all authors, we’re all motivational speakers, we’re all missionaries …
When you change the definition of a word to include everything, it ends up meaning nothing. When you change the definition of the word missionary to include all Christians, it means nothing.
But American Christians like to think of themselves as missionaries because: (1) they’re self-centered and enamored with their own self-importance, and (2) they don’t want to feel guilty about not being real missionaries. They can think, “I’m just as spiritual as the guy who moved to Brazil – or Africa – or India – because, after all, we’re all missionaries! God called them to go – and He’s calling me to stay!”
This kind of thinking is a disservice to missionaries. Real missionaries have given up their homeland, their comfort, their careers, their financial security, and their families to go to a foreign land where they don’t know anybody, they don’t know the language, and they don’t know the culture. They’ve given up everything, and American Christians have the audacity and arrogance to call themselves missionaries as they commit their lives to the pursuit of the American dream??? Please don’t trivialize and disrespect the commitment and sacrifice of real missionaries by trying to call yourself a missionary.
You might think, “I know that I’m not really a full-time missionary. But why not expand the definition of missionary to include those of us who stay at home? After all, it would give us more of a sense of purpose and motivation in sharing the Gospel.” But there are a couple of problems with this approach.
First, the ends don’t justify the means. Changing the definitions of words in order to motivate Christians is like lying in order to achieve a greater goal. I don’t buy it.
Second, telling stay-at-home Americans that they’re already missionaries reduces the motivation to answer God’s call to the mission field.
So, no, you are not a missionary. I hope you share the Gospel – but that doesn’t make you a missionary. But maybe you could be a missionary! Consider the following statistics.
- About 1 out of every 800 of evangelical Christians is a full-time missionary.
- About 1 out of every 20,000 evangelicals is a missionary to an unreached people group.
- In the USA there is 1 full-time Christian worker for every 230 people. Among unreached people groups there is 1 full-time Christian worker for every 450,000 people.
These are pathetic statistics. In Mark 16:15 Jesus said, “Go to all the world and preach the gospel.” Christians respond to this verse in one of two ways: (1) I already am in the world so I don’t need to go anywhere! (2) God was speaking to the disciples, not to me.
But there are problems with these two excuses.
First, Jesus’ command to “go to the world” in the context of Mark 16 was a specific command for the disciples to leave the land of Israel and go to the Gentiles. In other words, Jesus was telling the disciples to leave their home. Imagine if they had responded to Jesus’ call by saying, “I already am in the world!” That would have missed the point and made a mockery of Jesus’ command.
Second, I find it interesting how Christians pick and choose which verses apply today and which verses applied only to the immediate audience of Bible times.
- “Love your neighbor as yourself?” Sure, that applies to me.
- “Don’t forsake the gathering together of yourselves?” Sure, that applies to us.
- “Sell all that you have and give to the poor?” Well, no, of course that doesn’t apply to me!
- “Go to all the world and preach the Gospel?” No, of course that doesn’t apply today!
Pick and choose. That way we can live however we want and still claim to follow the Bible. Clever.
Of course, I’m in no position to be casting stones. After all, I’ve never been a missionary. However, there are two types of disobedience: (1) a hard-hearted disobedience that makes excuses and blithely continues on its way, and (2) a repentant disobedience that admits its mistakes, asks for forgiveness, and tries to do better.
Sometimes I wish that Evangelicals were more like Mormons. More than 80% of Mormon men and about 50% of women go on a two-year mission trip shortly after high school at their own expense. It’s not required but it’s “strongly encouraged.” Of course, that’s an easier sell for Mormons since they have to work for their salvation … but still! We have the truth! Shouldn’t we be more mission-minded than the Mormons?
I regret that I didn’t go on the mission field when I was younger. I should have gone. I should have obeyed the call of Mark 16:15. Now it’s too late for me – I have family responsibilities in the USA that I can’t get away from. I don’t wallow in regret but I’m thankful that at least I have the opportunity to go on short-term mission trips once a year.
What about you? What’s your excuse? Are you willing to follow Jesus’ call in Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15, and Acts 1:8? Is it possible that you could someday be a real missionary?
There is much in this one. First, I agree that
ReplyDelete1. to communicate, the key words in a discussion require both clear and the same meanings in our minds, provided by definitions;
2. that differentiation of tasks in the church is clearly seen in scriptural church history.
Second, a few comments:
1. What I am wondering is where you got the definition of missionary. In my Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, "missionary" is defined as "a person undertaking a mission and esp. a religious mission". Then under "mission" it has in part, "the act or an instance of sending". The two definitions are roughly in accord but the M-W definition is more general - so general that Good American Christians (GACs) might argue that it includes them at home.
2. I differentiate further between missionaries like George N. Patterson (book: The China Paradox: Christ versus Marx", Word Pub., 1990) or Gladys Alwin or Vic Schlatter or Luke Huber, visionaries who had a larger view of what to do - a mission "calling" - versus what I call "welfare missionaries", not uncommon in Belize, who largely live an easy life on money from churches that they visit once or twice a year to rally the parishoners to continue their support.
3. The word "missionary" easily brings to mind the 19th-century meaning of bringing the Way to the primitive savages. Although there are still a few unreached low-population tribes in the hinterlands, the vast majority of what needs to be done in the 21st century (and much of the 20th) is to deepen the faith (which notably includes way of life) of the vast multitude of nominally Christian Africans and Latinos. Dottie and I have made a kind of appeal to those we know having a missionary interest to move to El Progresso, a small Latino village of a few hundred people near us, and work with the 7 churches (6 evangelico, 1 catolico). Why? Because it is a struggle for such people to pull themselves up by their spiritual bootstraps. Someone filled with the spirit of God could give them a substantial boost. There are thousands of villages like this throughout Central and South America. Where are the missionaries? Any GAC who seeks to bring understanding, enlightenment, and a better way to live to such people should be advised that this is a two-way street in that much of the latent apostacy of GACs will be exposed. It is a mutually beneficial kind of mission.
Delete4. "... Mark 16 was a specific command for the disciples to leave the land of Israel and go to the Gentiles." I recommend abandoning the use of the word "Gentile" in a biblical context for the same reason as given in agreement # 1 above. Etymologically, the word is from the Latin "gentilis" meaning anyone who is not a Roman citizen. (So Jesus was a gentile!) In a modern context, with a Mideast state called Israel and 20th-century Jewish history, "Gentile" is now defined as anyone who is not Jewish. (What that actually means ethnically is also in dispute: websearch on Schlomo Sand and Arthur Koestler for that.) Applying Feucht's First Law of Bible translation, the word mistranslated (with the modern meaning) "Gentiles" in the Bible - both OT and NT - is "goyim" in Hebrew and "ethnae" in Greek. They mean the same and the most accurate word in English for them is "nations", whether they be Israelite (not necessarily Jewish) or non-Israelite. If the translators were consistent and left their theological interpretation of text out, they would translate (in Genesis), "Abraham was the father of many Gentiles". Upon further inspection, the particular "nations" to which Jesus sent his missionaries was to the dispersed Israelites - those "lost" tribes who were neither lost to the NT disciples nor to a remnant of Europeans who have kept their own history. (For instance, the Scottish "Declaration of Independence", the Declaration of Arbroath is explicit in asserting that the Scots (Scoti) are Israelites.
5. And finally, the short-term mission trips - I am not saying that some of them do no good, but most of them, as I observe at the destination end, are teenagers or close to it who are entirely unprepared and UNCOMMITTED to a real mission. As a consequence, these one or two week trips divert resources from true missionaries (as you defined them) and become little more than a 2-week vacation in tropical paradise. At best, they are like the old U.S. Peace Corps in that they expose GACs to an awareness of how the rest of the world lives and thinks.
Really good points, Dennis. To respond in order:
Delete1. The definition of missionary that I'm using is actually a sort of amalgamation of various sources from the usual places that pop up in a Google search. My definition is not a word-for-word copy of any specific source, but rather my own paraphrase from a few different sources. I know some definitions of "missionary" seem to be so general that any GAC could qualify, but that's exactly what I'm writing against.
2. I also know that some "missionaries" overseas abuse their calling - I don't want to make it sound like all missionaries are spiritual or godly or even worth supporting! But my goal with this post is to motivate stay-at-home Christians to consider foreign missions for themselves and not to use bad examples as an excuse to stay home.
3. There is a huge number of unreached people groups, those who have never heard the Gospel. They're not "primitive savages" but they're stuck in the ways of Islam or Buddhism or atheism some other ideology, and they live in areas where there are simply no Christians. This is a great need. However, I agree with you 100% regarding the need for less traditional missionaries in areas like Belize and other Latin American countries, and I know that missionary work is a two-way street - that's part of the benefit of missions!
4. Your point here opens a big can of worms - a worthwhile can of worms, but a can of worms nonetheless - but I think when Jesus told his disciples to go to the world, he was telling them to leave their homeland. The Greek word in Mark 16:15 is actually "cosmos" (more or less) which means, literally, "everywhere."
5. Again, great points, and important points. My response is that, I agree, teens are usually not prepared. But the solution is not to keep them at home, but rather to prepare them better. Some short-term mission efforts involve no preparation, but a few notable exceptions are pretty intensive in their preparation and training before the trip. My other response is that Americans need to go on short-term mission trips in order to open their eyes to mission work and open themselves up to God's call - not only God's call to missions, but God's call to anything. Travel is a way to get out of our comfort zone and open our minds to the Spirit. Some people stay at home their whole lives and never expand their horizons. Others try new things and travel to new places, and as a result their minds are better attuned to the Spirit's voice. Much more could be said about this - maybe in another post. :)
On point # 3, there are many places where Christianity is sparse to nonexistent, but it is usually not because the gospel did not reach to these peoples but that they rejected it. In western China are many relatively isolated language groups of Buddhists who are extremely resistant to the gospel and whole groups of them, with their own language, have not a single Christian among them.
DeleteAs for Islam, there is a spectrum of attitudes there. Many Muslims are open to the NT scriptures. That was my experience among the Muslims who worked in Tek Labs. (One of them even took my side in an argument with an apostate.) The Muslims are closer to the ways of God than are Buddhists or Zoroastrians or (need I say) Satanists, or neo-pagans. We share a large overlap of common beliefs with both good Muslims and good Judaists, and this gives us much common ground on which to discuss wider issues. At the other extreme are some of these Buddhist groups in western China who fully reject the gospel. I don't see any point in putting much effort there but many people who are marginal could be strengthened in their relationship to God in Latin America and Africa.
We live at the end of the age of Pisces. The Great Commission has largely been fulfilled in its breadth. The apostasy of the times makes depth a bigger challenge.
Dennis, you have to stop looking ahead at my future posts! I will write about Muslims shortly - maybe within the next week or two. Those of us who work in high-tech areas often have lots of chances to interact with Muslims (except for those of us in the defense industry). Muslims in American are often open to discussions about the Gospel, but Muslims in other countries (along with Buddhists in China) have never heard the Gospel. You're right that they rejected it in the past, but the current generation should have a chance to hear it rather than being "punished for the sins of their fathers." But I also agree with you that spiritual depth in "Christian nations" like the USA, Africa, and Latin American countries is a huge and important challenge.
DeleteDan, on your #4 above - yes, it is clear that before his ascent into space, Yahowshua (Jesus) commanded his disciples that the gospel be taken everywhere in the "kosmos" - the developed world-system of the time, and in Matt. 28:19, there is that word "nations" again, which can mean both Israelites or non-Israelites. Earlier, Jesus sent the 72 out to what had to be the local Judean Israelites, given the constraints on their mission set by Jesus. Subsequent history shows that the 12 apostles went to Israelite nations - most of them to the West (Philip to Britain and W. Europe, Paul to Catalonia (Spain) and Britain, Simon Zealotes, to east England, where the Romans martyred him) including Peter, who went to Judeans in Asia Minor (Bythinia). Thomas went to Persia and northern India, where he subsequently evangelized the Malabar Coast on the west side of the southern tip of India, where the Mar Thoma congregation of Christians still exists (and I know one here in Belize). The Christian message was taken as far as China and Japan. Church historian par excellence Ben Wilkinson, in Truth Triumphant: the Church in the Wilderness, fills in forgotten/ignored/avoided church history beyond that of the Vatican's making. In chapter 21 he begins: The name of Adam singles out an unusual leader ... connected with the Church of the East [another major neglected church] in China. When he was director of the Assyrian Church in China, a memorial in marble was erected in that land in 781 ... From that time it was excavated in 1625 ... the story told by its inscription reveals the early missionary endeavors which carried the gospel to the Far East." Hence, the gospel has spread far and wide, but has been rejected, whether overtly or from neglect, far and wide too. For China, there is a connection between the ancient Chinese sages and the religion of the Hebrew patriarchs ... for another time.
DeleteReally interesting back and forth, I appreciate the knowledge being shared greatly...or is it greatly being shared...regardless just a couple of thoughts
ReplyDelete1."It is estimated that of the 7.83 billion people alive in the world today, 3.37 billion of them live in unreached people groups with little or no access to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. According to Joshua Project, there are approximately 17,428 unique people groups in the world with 7,400+ of them considered unreached (over 42% of the world’s population!). The vast majority (85%) of these least reached groups exist in the 10/40 window and less than 10% of missionary work is done among these people." Stats from Frontier Global missions. To me these numbers are staggering, in a world where I can make a financial transaction, hear a voice, or view live footage in seconds we as the Church should be ashamed of these type of numbers. To me this says that the Great Commission is far from being fulfilled.
2. Short term missions have taken on a new value for me, especially for the current and upcoming generations. I believe and have seen that great work can be done, even over a 2 week period, but more so I believe that for a percentage of the trip takers it will impact them eternally. This impact will then impact the Kingdom eternally. I doubt most short term missions affect permanent mission funding much at all because (as stated in the blog) the percentage of mission giving is infinitesimal to actual income. I highly doubt that there are many cases where Christians have to cut on a monthly commitment to a full time mission so they can help out a teenager/niece/neighbor for their summer mission trip. If I give to someone for a short term mission trip it generally just means one less trip to Applebees that week. I think those trips are valuable for the attendee and much more than a "2 week trip in a tropical paradise." The last 2 short term trips I supported were to Haiti and a area in Mexico with 68% poverty. I don't think those attendees considered their trips a tropical paradise getaway. So in reverse to thinking of short term missions being valuable for the receivers, I'm more prayerfully (and realistically) hopeful they that impact the traveler.
Sorry this is Dave Simon
DeleteDave, good points, thanks. I think you're expanding and reinforcing what I already said. I really don't understand the apathy regarding missions in the US. In the church I attend, the last missionary that they sent out was my wife Annette when she was single, almost 40 years ago. How can a church go for 40 years without sending out a single missionary? I don't understand it. Annette was on the field for two years, and she never became a life-long missionary, but her time in Brazil 40 years ago led to her visiting missions on short-term trips many times during the past decade, serving as the liaison between the Brazilian missions and the US support system, and also led to me being involved in missions. So, you're exactly right - short-term missions benefit the traveler more than the foreign mission field.
DeleteDan...I wish I had time for a more thorough response. Interesting that the word/definition of "missionary" isn't in the Bible, so I think your definition is open for critique (given in humility and in friendship). First - I disagree that a missionary needs to be "sent away from home" and that if your "home is in the USA, and you still live in the USA... you are not a missionary." National boundaries are man-made and quite arbitrary...by your definition somebody travelling from Bellingham, WA to just one mile north of the Canadian border to preach would be a missionary, but somebody stopping short of the border wouldn't be?
ReplyDeleteSecond - I think your conception of "mission" is very limited. God has a mission in the world that is expansive, and our role in that mission as the Body of Christ should likewise be expansive. This certainly includes cross-cultural, cross-nations work. It also includes starting nonprofits, building businesses, working in local churches, running a workforce development program, and other endeavors that contribute to human flourishing. These activities are needed in Detroit and Dubai, in Los Angeles and Laos.
Third -- I think a much more useful distinction that "missionary vs non-missionary" is the five-fold ministry spoken of in Eph 4:11 - Apostles, profits, evangelists, pastors, teachers. Here I would agree with you that not all are "apostles" (sent ones), nor all are "evangelists", etc. Alan Hirsch has written extensively on this topic, and he expands on these five types and their application to modern times very well (in my opinion).
Thanks Dave - yes, my definition is definitely open to critique. I offered my definition as a combination of various sources, influenced by my own understanding and background. But your example about Bellingham and Canada is not really convincing because any definition or argument can be stretched to an absurd one by taking it to extremes. My definition is general and of course there will be exceptions.
DeleteSecond - I agree that God has a mission for all of us, but not everyone with a "mission" is a "missionary." The two words are related, but they're more like cousins rather than siblings. I'm not saying that domestic Christian work is unimportant - it is important and necessary! I am saying that the church's neglect of overseas missions is scandalous. All of the work that you listed is important, including work like economic development, worship leadership, blog-writing to rouse the church from its stupor, etc. But international missionary work stands head-and-shoulders above all of these other efforts as a calling that should be primary for the church.
Third - the distinction in Eph. 4 is super important - I've never read Alan Hirsch but I agree that Eph. 4 is a great way to view the ministry of the church. It's just a different perspective than the one I wrote from.