David's Blog

The Cyprus Connection (in Acts 21)

January 2nd, 2012

The clues are right there but nobody sees it! Paul’s faithfulness to his calling and his fellowship with Gentile believers confirmed his apostleship and also led to his arrest. Take a close look at Paul’s final arrival in Jerusalem, just prior to his arrest and deportation for trial in Rome.

Acts 21:16-19 (ESV) And some of the disciples from Caesarea went with us, bringing us to the house of Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we should lodge. When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

Paul was billeted in Jerusalem with Mnason of Cyprus. Does that ring a bell? – any bell?

Do you recall where Paul went on his first missionary journey? (Answer – Cyprus). And with who? (Answer – Barnabas, a Cypriot, cf. Acts 4:36-37; 11:19-26).

This is significant in many ways. In his company are: Sopater (from Berea), Aristarchus and Secundus (from Thessalonica), Gaius (from Derbe), Timothy, Tychicus, and Trophimus (from Asia Province), Luke, — and possibly others. Paul took with him his menagerie of proof of his apostleship and calling as the missionary Apostle to the Gentlies (see early Acts 20). This troop also served as financial accountability auditors for the donations Paul was carrying from their home places to the famine-stricken brothers & sisters of Israel. And he goes to report to James and the leaders of the church in Jerusalem.

The Jerusalem church leaders are interested in giving the appearance of Paul fulfilling Jewish customs in the Temple to placate Jewish believers, to cause the Jewish believers to think that Paul was not teaching against Jewish customs.

Note to self: doing something for appearance primarily to placate others is not a good idea. Here’s my take on why it’s not a good idea in this case:

it backfired;
there is no indication that Paul agreed that the action was right; and,
even the findings of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, reiterated in the passage context, sound shallow and indefensible in light of Paul’s actual practice and teaching — Remember! he has a large contingent of Gentile believers with him and is staying in the home of a Gentile believer.

Just a sidelight, the fact the he stayed in the home of a Cypriot believer may be an early indication that relations between Paul and Barnabas had already thawed. It may also have provided a platform for reconciliation with John Mark.

Paul knew what the irrational fervor of zealous Jews was like. While enjoying the hospitality of Mnason and the fellowship of his Gentile entourage, he must have foreseen the possibility that the scene at the Temple could turn out badly. In fact, he had specific, certified prophetic instruction about how it would turn out.

Lessons:

You’ve got to love Cypriots! They have a significant part of expansion of the Gospel in Acts.
Paul still humbly followed the counsel of the Jerusalem Elders. You’ve got to love his submission to spiritual leadership.
Even though he may have known that it was going to turn out rough for himself, he trusted the sovereignty of God and moved forward, prepared with his testimony (one of the most powerful tools that any believer has in sharing the Gospel).
Church leaders are only human, still influenced by others, still capable of making poor decisions, but still the leaders.

Posted in devotional thoughts | No Comments »

Distinguishing Purpose and Vision

August 25th, 2011

I just read an article, sent by a dear friend, which was trying to make a distinction between “mission” and “purpose”. The intent was to help organizations define things well enough to have meaningful measurements which help them evaluate if they are doing the right things, are on the right track, are achieving their goals. The primary problem with so many consultants trying to slice and separate those two terms, I think, is that they are inseparable. No wonder they are often confused; they are identical twins! They are, at most perhaps, two sides of the same coin.

Here’s my take on it ———

“They” say:

Mission: what you do
Vision: how you imagine it coming about
Purpose: why you do it

I work with NGOs and teach them:

Mission/Purpose: why you exist/what you do
Vision: what you’re aiming to do (a preferred future) by doing what you do in alignment with why you exist
Strategy: how you’re going to accomplish that vision

So, basically, I disagree with “their” definitions. To be fair, not all consultants have the semantic confusion; and, no, I’m not the only one who holds this view and picks this nit.

Mission IS purpose, in my book. It answers the question: Why do we exists? What are we to BE?
Vision answers the question: What do we want to accomplish in fulfilling this purpose? Vision is (to use a term from a friend) a BHAG (a big, hairy, audacious goal).
Strategy answers: How are we going to go about doing that? What are our chosen means to achieve that end?

What do you think?

Posted in concepts, strategy, vision | No Comments »

The Ultimate Church Diagnostic

June 24th, 2011

The Ultimate Church Diagnostic

Seven questions toward a biblical local church ministry.
It’ll “slap the sass out of you.”

This is my feeble attempt to answer the questions of the diagnostic. Each one of them could be a biblical thesis project. Most pastors and church leaders only need thoughtful reflection on Item #1 to give course corrections for their church. Yet, each item has its own merit and place in building a sound, biblical ministry philosophy.

1. Whose kingdom are you building?

There are really only two intuitive answers to this question:
a. God’s kingdom, or
b. My kingdom.
Clearly, “My kingdom” is rhetorically, theologically, and biblically the wrong answer. This is so obvious, that it puts pastors and church leaders in a terrible ethical dilemma. They know the right answer; if they could change their answer to match their heart’s wishes, they would answer, “God’s kingdom.” However, if ruthless honesty prevails, “My kingdom” would be the all-too-common, truthful answer.
• If you answer, “God’s kingdom,” it implies that you are willing to bow to God’s ways, God’s Word, and NOT to man’s ways, man’s means, and/or some “movement” or self-made, grandiose “vision”. The converse is also true: if you answer, “My kingdom,” it implies that you are willing to bow to man’s way, man’s means, and/or some “movement” or self-made, grandiose “vision,” and NOT to God’s ways and God’s Word. If you answer, “God’s kingdom,” as one pastor friend says, “It slaps the sass out of you.”

2. Who do you want to attend your local church meetings?

• There are really only two approaches to answer this question:
a. Believers.
b. Whoever we can attract to the church.
• The point of this question is biblical ecclesiology. Biblically, the church is an assembly of believers.
• There is no biblical justification for making the church an assembly of “seekers”. To pattern local church ministry after a “seeker”-oriented philosophy is 180⁰ out of phase with a good Bible understanding of:
a. The nature of the church – comprised of believers.
b. The nature of man – “no one seeks after God.”
• Church meetings, while not excluding non-believers, should be designed for corporate worship, edification, and fellowship for believers.

3. What are the primary intended results of the ministry of your local church leaders?

• This is a test of your understanding of the goal of local church ministry. Again there are only two categories of answers:
a. Equipping the saints and discipleship; or,
b. Some other answer.
• The “Some other answer” category is filled with well-meaning, unbiblical answers, such as: “Win people to Christ”, grow in numbers, extend our influence for the sake of Christ, etc. These
answers may be noble and even “biblical” in the limited sense that such activities and outcomes may be the natural outgrowth of Christian zeal and maturity. However, they fall short of the intended results articulated in Scripture; see Ephesians 4; also see the answers to
items #1 and #2 above.

4. What primary purpose/s of your local church do you want to be obvious to even the casual observer/attendee at your church worship services?

• Which side of the spectrum of answers does your church reflect:
a. Glorifying God, God-centered worship, prominence to teaching God’s Word
b. Making people feel comfortable, an enjoyable experience, winning the appreciation and allegiance of “seekers,”sharing the Gospel”
• This is another test of ecclesiology from a participant perspective. Here’s another way to look at it, either:
a. We show up to please God; or,
b. God shows up to please us.
• This shows up in very practical and particular ways. In our welcome, do we say, “We’re so privileged to have you join us this morning. We hope you have a wonderful experience here. We trust that our ministry will meet your needs and build up your self-esteem.” Or, do we say, “We appreciate you joining with us in exalting and glorifying God today. We hope you will learn of His greatness here. We trust that our ministry will be used by God to help you see your
helplessness and His merciful Provision.”
• Convicted yet? But wait, there’s more …

5. What is your vision for your local church’s role in evangelism and missions?

• If our vision for outreach is only to fill our pews, then our world is too small. A solid ecclesiology begets a solid missiology. Do we desire to:
a. Fulfill the Great Commission through active participation simultaneously in “Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and uttermost parts”; or,
b. Win our community to Christ, grow locally, plant other churches like ours – THEN, begin to build outward geographically.
• Go back to number #1. If we are obedient, we cannot remain restricted to building our church, our Jerusalem, our ministry.
• The local church, as God’s primary means of accomplishing His purposes on earth, is obligated by the commands of Christ, the clear teaching of the New Testament, a God-reflecting passion for the lost, and the sweep of God’s plans evident throughout
all of Scripture to be personally, directly, and integrally involved in fulfilling “the Great Commission”.
• If missions is not at the heart of everything the local church does, then that local church does not clearly understand or reflect God’s heart.

6. Describe the teaching and preaching ministry of your church using one-word or one phrase descriptors.

• This item tests your bibliology. Is your teaching and preaching ministry characterized by:
a. Systematic, expository, verse-by-verse, chapter-by-chapter; or,
b. Relevant, story telling, compelling, engaging.
• This is not a question of style, per se. It is a question of content.
• Does your ministry radiate a high view of God’s Word? Or, are you so concerned with “relevance” that the preeminence is given to illustrations, audio-visual excellence, “felt needs,” and human sources?
• The answer to this question is very important, because it deals with the core content and curriculum of all that the church teaches (see items #3 and #4).
• The Scripture is: inspired, sufficient, the sole source of normative revelation and guidance, the only authority for Christian faith and practice.
• Without a strong commitment to making the teaching, explanation, and application of God’s Word central to our ministries, we are not qualitatively different than a secular institution or child-care service.

7. What is/are the main factor/s in the decision-making of your leadership?

• This is applied theology. Do you and your leaders look to:
a. God’s Word, prayer, theology; or,
b. Demographics, numerical goals, practical considerations.
• Now, of course, we would all like to say that we seek God’s will through God’s Word and prayer in the decision-making process. But, this question doesn’t ask for wishful answers. This asks what actually are the main factors.
• Also, this doesn’t mean to imply that the “spiritual answer” mutually excludes practical considerations. This simply asks what actually are the main factors.
• The consequences of the differences are huge. On the spiritual side, expressions of dependence on God, His Word, and alignment with doctrine will yield rich spiritual harvest. On the earthy side, expressions of independence from God, His Word, and doctrine together with dependence on worldly frameworks and quantitative objectives will yield “every evil thing” (see James 3).

Summary Chart Form
God-centered	Item	Man-centered
	1. Whose kingdom?
God’s	<———————->	Mine
	2. Composition of the Church?
God’s people, believers	<———————->	World’s people, non-believers
	3. Results of ministry?
Equipping, discipling believers	<———————->	Whatever
	4. Purpose of worship?
God-centered	<———————->	Man-centered
	5. Church’s role in evangelism & missions?
Biblically balanced, God’s plan	<———————->	Self-centered growth
	6. Teaching of God’s Word?
High view of Scripture	<———————->	Low view of Scripture
	7. Decision making driven by …?
Dependence upon God and His word and alignment with sound teaching	<———————->	Dependence upon man and man’s tools, techniques, and metrics

Two big caveats:

1. Are there spaces between the extremes? Yes. In fact, any two churches answering all questions on the “God-centered” side may have very different expressions of those answers in their ministries. But, it is likely that members from one of those churches
visiting the other church would quickly see the common ministry philosophy. Consider that, for example, local church anywhere around the world, in any cultural and socio-economic context, in any prevailing religious and political climate should be able to answer on
the God-centered side, while their outward expression, liturgy, etc. may be very different.2. Could I be mistaken or too judgmental or simplistic in this whole approach? Probably. I am human. I could be way off the mark. But, maybe, just maybe, I’m on target. What are the risks
to writing off this line of thinking? You decide – before God; – you and your church reap the harvest.

With utmost love and affection for our Lord Jesus
Christ and His Church,

Propempo

Posted in concepts, local church missions ministry, theology | No Comments »

Church Missions Quandaries

May 20th, 2011

What are your church missions quandries? I’d like to find out what things are troubling you or your church in the area of missions. Knowing what to address can help us develop the right tools.

Here’s a few we’ve helped other churches with in the past months:

realizing that your missions vision is too “shotgun”, random, & tame — getting it God-sized and focused
short-term missions is either non-existent or too costly, too ineffective, too consuming — making sure we are good stewards in STM?
we’re supporting missionaries that aren’t really like-minded — what steps do we need to take to honor the Lord?
maximizing every member’s passion and involvement in missions
just getting an effective missions team/committee going to serve the church well (under the Elders)
working out the biblical theology of missions in real life ministry
Help! – someone wants to be a missionary! What do I do now? What details can help me guide them?
Planning a missions conference for the church
untangling knotty relationships with one of our missionaries; peace-making with your missionaries across the cultural divide
finding out how to maximize pastoral visits to the missionaries, or just to do it at all!

These are fairly common issues we help with on a regular basis. What are your quandaries?

David

Posted in local church missions ministry | No Comments »

Top Ten Myths Pastors Believe About Missions

May 13th, 2011

I’ve heard a lot of excuses. But the most dangerous are these common MYTHS about missions believed by church leaders. The following list come from real situations. Sometimes the church leader knows that the myth they believe is so lame that they don’t really want to articulate it out loud. Yet, if you dig a little bit below the surface, you uncover the weak foundation underneath.

10 – Giving to missions will reduce funds available to the General Fund.

9 – We’ve got to reach our “Jerusalem” before stretching out to “Judea and Samaria and the uttermost parts of the earth.”

8 – Our church is not big enough and/or our church income is not big enough.

7 – People in our community need the Gospel just as much as people across the sea [be careful with this myth!].

6 – When God wants us to be involved, it’ll be obvious to everyone in our church. [see #1 below]

5 – We don’t have anyone willing to step up and take responsibility for organizing or coordinating missions in our church.

4 – Missions will create a huge distraction for our people away from things they should be doing here.

3 – God doesn’t require our help “over there” to accomplish His purposes [be careful with this myth!].

2 – It’s hard to know where to start; so maybe it’s better to not get started at all.

1 – I really don’t see missions in the Bible.

Posted in concepts, local church missions ministry, vision | No Comments »

Passing the baton of local church mobilization

May 11th, 2011

I’ve known a bunch of different organizations and ways that God has used to help mobilize local churches in world missions. Some energize and inform the church through conferences, some with consulting/coaching, others with formulaic programs. Yet, as organizations and methods come and go, the final answer to responsibility for church mobilization lies at the feet of local church leaders. No matter who or what passes the baton of responsibility, it only has impact as real pastors and elders do something with it.

In an era of phenomenal accessibility of information and resources for local church missions mobilization, nothing replaces the personal passion and experience of actual flesh-and-blood church leaders in the trenches teaching and leading people individually and corporately in conscious commitment toward fulfillment of the Great Commission.

Fire them up! Kick the tires and light the fires! Get in the race! Place the baton of responsibility for local church missions mobilization squarely in the hands of your church leaders.

Posted in concepts, local church missions ministry | No Comments »

Ten reasons why a missionary’s relationship with his/her/their home church must be a priority

March 7th, 2011

Just how important it is a missionary’s relationship to his/her/their home church? Here are ten reasons why the missionary’s relationship to his home (sending) church is, perhaps, the highest priority relationship besides marriage and family for long-term ministry effectiveness. (I realize that some of these are overlapping)

As a missionary, you are an extension of your local church’s ministry.
Your ministry on the home side has its biggest impact in and influence on your home sending church body.
Because of your status as a member of the family of your home church, your church leaders have a stronger commitment to your life and ministry that even your mission board. They love and care for you because you’re part of the family and they have a stake in your personal holiness, the solidarity of your marriage and family, and your faithfulness to your church’s doctrine, vision, and purpose.
Your church will stick with you through thick and thin, in spite of your flaws, and help pick up the pieces in any sort of crisis. Typically your mission agency will stick with you as long as you meet their goals, do things their way, and stay within the guidelines of their IRS requirements as a nonprofit with you as their employee. Your church will stick with you when your ministry changes, when your mission board changes, when your missionary status changes.
You need to have somewhere to call “home”.
Your family, especially your children, need to have somewhere to call “home”.
Eventually you’re going to come off the mission field, even though you start with the idea (in theory) to serve your entire life in some cross-cultural ministry and be buried there. Investing in relationships with people in your own church will pay off big time in your transition.
You need people who love you to challenge you to higher goals and effectiveness. Even though it seems counterintuitive, a lot of mission boards simply do not give adequate routine evaluations including observations of your life and walk which have an impact on your long-term effectiveness in ministry. You need people who love you enough to admonish, rebuke, correct, and hold you accountable. You need people to challenge your ideas and vision to be more practical and realistic, you need people who don’t understand all that you know but are willing to listen well to help you discern how you can explain your vision and ministry more clearly to others who don’t know.
Ministry goals may change and or be fulfilled; your type of ministry or location may change; your team on the field will change; your mission agency or affiliation may change; but, more than likely, your home church and the dearest and best relationships with fellow Christians you have on earth will be there for you.
Although missionaries are expected to be able to “feed themselves” spiritually on the field., Most of us need a lot of input and stimulation from outside sources. Nothing meets that need better than spiritual input and ministry and news from your home church. You can picture the building, the people, the classes, the worship, the inside jokes, and empathize with the joys and sorrows of folks with whom you share membership in the same mutually committed body of believers. You need your home church because you need that spiritual input to survive on mission field fraught with spiritual resistance, conflict, and warfare.

Posted in concepts, local church missions ministry, partnership development | No Comments »

Ten potential problems between a missionary and the home church

March 7th, 2011

Ten potential problems (and suggestions toward solutions) in a missionary’s relationship with his/her/their home/sending church. (I realize that some of these are overlapping)

If you have a great relationship with your sending church, your heart is bound to be broken as people you love leave the church for various reasons, whether good or bad.
It’s possible that your home church may split while you’re on the field. It’s happened to many of us. It’s heartbreaking. You may be asked to pick sides. Don’t give in to the temptation (or even a request) to assume the offenses of others. Take the position of encouraging a peacemaking stance. Pray like crazy. Because of your great relationships, the value of your ministry, and your godly behavior even in the midst of the church crisis, both sides of the split may end up supporting you.
Often, the home or sending church carries a significant portion of your support. If your church falls on hard times, for whatever reason, it’s possible that their support would dwindle or be endangered. Part of your ministry as a member of your church is to work to ensure the ongoing strength and health of your church. So don’t neglect your role in helping your church stay strong and fixed on godly, right, and biblical goals and conduct.
Your church’s leadership may change. With leadership change often comes a change of direction or priorities in ministry. Particularly during those seasons of change, you must give extra effort and attention to developing, sustaining, and enhancing your respectful relationship with church leadership. Introduce and explain your ministry all over again. Be patient and willing to answer any questions. Work for the successful integration and leadership of new leaders.
Because your home church is your sending church and has a huge investment in your life, ministry, and support, they may have unrealistically high expectations of you, your time, and your participation during home assignments. This is actually a good thing; but you need to graciously explain why you may not be able to meet all those expectations and what other reasonable responsibilities and time commitment you may have for your family (e.g. getting a child establishing college, caring for aging parents, or walking through significant counseling issues), your mission agency (e.g. training missionary candidates or new missionaries, speaking engagements, representation of the mission at various events, reporting and debriefing with mission leadership), or simply time for recovery from exhaustion or burnout or health issues.
Your church has probably grown since the time you left the field. That means that there are lots of new faces and new people that you really don’t know and they really don’t you know you. So get with the program and get to know them ASAP. Even before you land home side, you can get a church directory and highlight people that you need to meet. Ask trusted friends to give you a briefing about those new people.
Your church may have substantially changed or even erred in direction theologically. The shift may have been almost indiscernible to the members because of their proximity to the issues. However, to you, it seems clear because of distance and greater objectivity, that the church no longer earns your vote of confidence because of doctrinal or biblical drift. Go slow; don’t be reactionary; don’t be quick to judge. Ask good questions. Seek godly counsel. Be gracious. Determine the facts of the case. Then act slowly, graciously, respectfully, and try to win them back by your gentle godly spirit and sound biblical evidences. If this approach does not work and you are quite sure that there are valid biblical reasons and not simply personal preference issues, then you may have to begin the painful process of separation from your home church and find another home church. In any case you need to do whatever is possible to be at peace with all men, to retain personal relationships as much as possible, and to not hold any unforgiving spirit or rancor. Be very careful to not speak ill of your church or its leadership to others.
Your church may decide that your ministry is simply not a strategic priority for them anymore. There are several problems with this situation. But one of the problems is your own. That is, that you should have seen this coming. You need to have such a relationship with your church leadership and, especially, your church missions leadership to be able to discern their growth, direction, and understanding of strategic missions ministries. You have an opportunity in communication with them to grow in your own direction and understanding of strategic missions ministries to be in more alignment with theirs. They are not going to penalize you for changes in your ministry that move you more to the bull’s-eye of their target. Also, even if you find it impossible to shift your ministry to meet their ideals, at least you’ll have a heads up to reinforce your support and relationships so that their shift may not hurt so badly.
You may change and grow. You may look back and discover that you have matured in your biblical, theological, and/or practical ministry development and that you realize you are no longer in compatible harmony with your local church. This is a problem; but you can take it as a very positive opportunity for teaching. You didn’t arrive at your new awareness or understanding overnight; you shouldn’t expect everyone else to adopt it quickly without wrestling with the issues or study as you have. So, part of your ministry to your local church is helping them mature in the same way. You will always have a discipleship relationship with your local church. It is a part of your missionary ministry. It is not a “necessary evil”. It is a God ordained priority in your overall life ministry. So take it as part of your calling to model, teach, stimulate, and encourage biblical growth and understanding among your fellow members and leaders in your sending church.
Your sending church may dissolve. This is tragic; but occasionally it happens. Note: this is not something that happens to you; it is something that you are a part of. This solution may or may not be a crisis for you. It usually doesn’t happen quickly or without anticipation. So, depending on your schedule for ministry and/or home assignment, you may need to take a trip back home to reestablish yourself with significant time commitment in a new home or sending church. If you are fortunate enough to have more than one church with whom you have an excellent nurturing relationship, the transition may be relatively easy. Just be sure, if you have to change sending churches, that the new sending church understands their heightened responsibility and accountability for you and your ministry. You won’t regret the effort.

Posted in concepts, local church missions ministry, partnership development | No Comments »

What are the qualifications of a good sending church?

March 5th, 2011

First of all, it’s important that a prospective sending church understand their role in raising up, equipping, and preparing a missionary from their midst to go out to the field.

The missionary, regardless of the type of ministry they anticipate on the field, should exhibit the maturity, discernment, and character of a biblical elder. Even a single woman or a wife should exhibit character parallel to that of a biblical elder. Such screening and recognition can only occur with close relationship, proximity, and observation of the candidate both in the local church ministry setting, in their family, and in the community. It can only happen over a period of time with sufficient probing in an atmosphere of love and concern.

While the local church will not likely be competent in and of itself to provide all the training required for missionary preparation, the local church leadership should be directly involved in guiding, monitoring, and selecting the best reasonably available resources for the candidate’s preparation. This is a matter of wise delegation and management of the individuals training. Prefield training should include attention to biblical, doctrinal, cultural, linguistic, methodological, strategic, medical, educational, security, supervision, and various other practical concerns.

During the period of time from initial consideration for missionary service through to commissioning and launch, the elders of the sending church should be involved and informed regarding the progress and development of their candidate. In addition, there should be mature mentoring and personal encouragement support through someone delegated from the congregation and/or a “Barnabas team” of people especially concerned for the successful completion of the process of the long-term effectiveness of the candidate in the process.

So, the would-be sending church is involved from the very beginning of the candidate’s consideration for missionary service. The church should be involved in the selection of a field, as well as the specific perspective ministry, and the partnering mission agency (if one is to be used). The local church should not assume that any other entity, namely school or agency, is responsible for validating the worthiness, fitness, and preparedness of their candidate. The missionary is, after all, essentially an extension staff of the church and fully represents the church on the field.

The local church must also be prepared to assist their prospective missionary in the process of raising support. This includes activity and advocacy on behalf of their missionary from determining readiness for beginning the process of support raising to its completion and ongoing support raising needs. If the local churches directly supervises their missionary, there must also be a mutually accepted and objective means of determining a standard for the level of support, benefits, and all ancillary expense categories connected with service on the field. “Living by faith” or “going out by faith” does not mean foolish presumption or thoughtless failure to plan.

A good sending church will also be prepared to provide shepherding and ministry supervision from a distance. Generally it would be expected that some representative from the local church would visit their missionary on the field at least every two years. This is part of the cost of being a good sending church. It does not mean that the senior pastor must be that representative. It does not even mean that one of the leaders of the church must be that representative. It means that the church will select and/or appropriate someone who will adequately represent the church in visiting the missionary on the field, providing shepherding and accountability there, and returning a discerning report to the church leadership upon their return from the field visit.

Here are some suggested minimums:

The sending church has a written outline for the process of becoming a missionary sent from the church.
The sending church understands and accepts the obligation of the church to guide and manage the development of their missionary in: character, ministry competency (including language and cultural acquisition and adjustment), doctrinal integrity, and direction/allocation on the field.
The sending church establishes a mentor and/or Barnabas Team advocate person or group beyond the general oversight of the elders.
The sending church sets a mutually-acceptable comprehensive support schedule and helps the missionary raise those funds through accountability, advocacy, and active assistance.
The sending church commits to appropriate communication and shepherding on the field.
The sending church intelligently interacts with ministry decisions and strategy on the field.
The sending church provides an annual evaluation of the field missionary, their ministry, family, and working relationships.

Now, if this list seems daunting, that is a good thing. Too often local churches underestimate the complexity and difficulty of functioning as a good sending church with such a depth of relationship to their field missionary and their ministry. However, there are many good resources to help the church fulfill their function and role. There are many ways and means for equipping and training prospective missionaries, including exposure to culture and language learning, practical and experiential courses, both formal and informal academic training.

Propempo International can advise your church in the process and the choices along the way. When the church has met the requirements above and their prospective missionary has fulfilled whatever training and qualifications necessary to be sent by their church, application can be made to the mission agency mutually agreed upon by the church leaders and the candidate.

Posted in concepts, local church missions ministry | No Comments »

Thinking of biblical missiology

February 19th, 2011

I’ve been re-reading a lot on “theology of missions” lately and came across these powerful statements by George Peters in A Biblical Theology of Missions:

Too long America has propagated missions on the basis of philanthropy, Christian duty and responsibility, gospel necessity and church expansion. These are not altogether unworthy motives but they are not the deepest motives nor do they generate the highest degree of spiritual dynamism. (p. 12) [making his case that biblical motivation for missions is rooted in God and in a proper biblical theology]

The Bible knows nothing of the superficial views of sin floating about today … According to revelation, sin is sinful not only because of its inherent evil and awful consequences in time and eternity, in man and the universe, in the natural, social, moral and spiritual realms, but supremely because it is committed against God. God is the measure of all sin. Sin derives its seriousness from the character and being of God against whom it is committed. Here lies its gravity, its heinousness, its depth, its fatality. (p. 16)

We believe that we are not out of line with New Testament thinking if we state that the local congregation of believes stands in a unique relationship to Christ and that the local assembly becomes the mediating and authoritative sending body of the new Testament missionary. This is a vital, biblical principle and we dare not weaken, minimize, nor disregard it. (p. 219)