A “local church” that is “local,” is not a local church. Our Lord mandated, “Go into all the world and make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20).
———-
UPDATE per the comment of OSU fan Brian McLaughlin:
Better said, a local church that is exclusively local is not a local church. Certainly, local churches should first be local – – but, it cannot end there.
Really? But “all the world” includes the local. In fact, I might argue that the greatest impact a local church can have in the Great Commission is in its local context. Enough of us sending money overseas and patting ourselves on the back for doing mission. We need to be missionaries where God has placed us.
Furthermore, the best way to impact the world with the Great Commission is to support local (i.e. native, national, etc) missionaries to do the work.
I think I have to respectfully disagree with my brother on this one!
Okay, Brian, you win. Hey, you need a good week going into the Penn State game.
I even updated the post.
Better to say, “a local church that is exclusively local, is not a local church.” But, then that isn’t as pithy.
Of course, it isn’t one or the other: doing missions at home or supporting global ministries. . .
I’ll accept that!
I started reading your book this weekend. I’m about 5 chapters in. I’m really enjoying it and being challenged by it.
It’s late here, but before I turn in for the night I must disagree with the comment from the most excellent fellow Buckeye fan.
“Furthermore, the best way to impact the world with the Great Commission is to support local (i.e. native, national, etc) missionaries to do the work.”
I don’t see that one in the Bible. I see ‘as you go make disciples…’ but I don’t see ‘send money instead of people.’
Okay, now lets talk. =)
looking forward for more information about this. thanks for sharing. Eugene
Todd, is there a trend right now to support nationals rather than send people? What do you think about that?
Have you read any books recently regarding developments in missions that you would recommend?
Todd, my Buckeye friend: I hope you didn’t misread my post. I didn’t say “send more money.” I was lamenting the fact that all most North American churches do is send money and then they feel proud of themselves for doing mission. I agree with you completely that it is not about sending money.
But on the verse “as you go…” you are correct. But the reality is that 99% (my guess) of people do not “go” to another nation. Rather, they obey the command “as you go…” right in their own back yard (or, I should say, they are supposed to obey the command this way). I don’t think Jesus meant for everyone to go to another country, though this is his call on some.
Regarding supporting nationals, this is the trend. Some of it is a backlash against the “colonizing missionaries” who transplanted American culture as well as the Gospel, but some of it is a recognition that the Gospel is now in many places that it was not 100 years ago…in fact, the Gospel is more prominent in some of these places than in North America!!! So let’s send people to where there is no Gospel, let’s support poorer missionaries who can effectively minister in their own culture where the Gospel exists.
Those are my thoughts for a Tuesday…I’m anxious to learn from someone who is actually out there…you have a valuable perspective that I don’t….
Brian, I don’t think I misread you. I just tried to stir things up a bit. This is one of those issues I’m working through myself. =) I have really appreciated your posts on the missional church, btw.
I have seen a whole denomination supported from outside the country and how damaging that can be. There is a disconnect between the pastor and the congregation. When a group of these pastors meet to direct the affairs of the group of churches they don’t have their own agenda, but the competing agenda’s of their supporting organizations. These kind of experiences tend to sour me on the idea. At the same time, I know that we Americans have a responsibility to wisely use our resources in other places around the world. My standard answer to the question is that a church should give to a church and not an individual. I don’t even really like the idea of giving to a church for a specific individual, but that is a better option than to an individual. My point here is that if the church already exists there, let’s not usurp their authority by chosing who we will support. Give them the resources and let them and the Holy Spirit work it out. I read a paper on how a whole generation of pastors were chosen in a country based on who spoke English or German well. Not necessarily biblical criteria. This could be DMin work if I really get going, so I’ll stop.
One other issue I’m wrestling with involves the fact that when I came to Europe there were people responding to the Gospel. Now, it seems like there is very little response and the Church is very weak, 1-2% of the population would be evangelical. Cities of several hundred thousand with only a couple hundred believers. We need people who will come live in the cities of Europe, learn the language, and minister the Gospel to their neighbor; more boots on the ground.
That’s probably enough for now. Just send me your Barnabas types and all the young couples eager to share their spiritual lives in places like Berlin, Paris, and Rome. Oh, can we start thinking of missions in Europe from Acts 11:19ff instead of 13:1? That one hit me during a discussion with a bunch of pastors this past week.
I hope nothing came across as offensive in my long rant here. If you have any doubts about my attitude, just read it aloud with an Elmer Fudd voice. =)