# "Innovations" in missions...can we innovate?



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2008)

I keep hearing that we should always follow the Biblical example when we evangelize or do missions.

But, let's take the following list:


•	Blanketing an area with radio and/or TV broadcasts and telling listeners/watchers to write in for a correspondence course. In similar fashion, having a website ministry.

•	Going door-to-door and asking people to come to a Sunday meeting.
•	Conducting huge tent or stadium crusades and hoping that converts could be gathered together afterwards to form a worshipping church.
•	Translating the Bible into the local language and praying that the co-translators will be the first ones to come to know Christ.
•	Building a huge, beautiful church building then inviting people to come fill it (like the Alliance did in Lima, Peru).
•	Starting home Bible Studies among interested people and hopefully gathering them together into a church at a later date.
•	Starting cell groups with the goal to making them multiply within a few months (a la Ralph Neighbor).
•	Massive literature distribution (a la Every Home Crusade).
•	Friendship evangelism, especially in closed countries.
•	Starting hospitals, schools, and orphanages with the hopes that people will be exposed to the gospel while there.
•	Doing community development in the hopes that social action will be interpreted as Christ’s agape love for the world.
•	Concentrating on planting a church planting movement—the big buzz word today in missions. (list compiled by another)


Some of these methods hadn’t been invented in the Apostle Paul’s day. 

There is thus no Biblical example of many of these, even translating the Bible (Paul did not translate)...was not included.


So, if we are trying to be Biblical, which of these "innovations" can we use.


And how does this square with the regulative principle that says not to add it unless the Bible has it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 23, 2008)

Interesting; you have heard of Every Home Crusade; they are from Northern Ireland.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 23, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I keep hearing that we should always follow the Biblical example when we evangelize or do missions.
> 
> But, let's take the following list:
> 
> ...



A question you need to ask Perg, is whether or not these things may "by good and necessary consequence be deduced from Scripture", and thus divinely ordained? If these things may be legitimately deduced from Scripture, then they are not innovations.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2008)

THanks brother...

Yes, tell me more of the every home crusade. I have heard, but know little...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 23, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> THanks brother...
> 
> Yes, tell me more of the every home crusade. I have heard, but know little...



The man who founded it Ernie Allen died about 5 years ago, he was a very zealous man who printed millions of tracts to sent to people all round the world. The work started off as Mr. Allen desired to distribute a copy of John's Gospel to every home in Northern Ireland (hence the name "Every Home Crusade"), then it grew and grew.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 23, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> A question you need to ask Perg, is whether or not these things may "by good and necessary consequence be deduced from Scripture", and thus divinely ordained? If these things may be legitimately deduced from Scripture, then they are not innovations.



I agree with Daniel. This is a good point.

Innovations in society regarding methods and technology are inevitable and not necessarily evil unless the innovation consists in altering God's word for the sake of "better" results. 

Case in point: innovating who can and cannot be lawfully ordained in order to start churches with greater speed. The intention appears noble, but God's word always trumps our plans and intentions. Saul lost the kingdom due to such "good" intentions.

[bible]1 Samuel 15:22[/bible]

The Methodists Circuit Riders of the 19th century were an _innovation_ credited with the greatest success in expanding the church into the new western frontier in America. They would travel door to door and simply appoint anyone to office of minister and thus start churches with out going through the "slow and rigid" ordination processes required by the reformed churches. Yes churches sprang up faster but do the results justify the non-biblical innovation?

I am always amazed at how the broad evangelical church justify all their innovations such as drama, puppet shows, in-service starbucks, etc. with the amount of people they reach or convert.

The altar call was an innovation that also had great "results" and still does today.

So it depends on the innovation. God's word does not need innovated and no matter how well intentioned the "sacrifice" and how many people appear to be converted as a result and how many churches started, God's word stands and He will rightly judge such innovations and use whatever sinful means He deems to accomplish His good purposes.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2008)

okay....

how about voluntarily associations then, such as William Carey called for in his "Enquiry." This gave birth to the missionary society, which is classified under the broad heading of "Para-church". Can this innovation be allowed?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 23, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> okay....
> 
> how about voluntarily associations then, such as William Carey called for in his "Enquiry." This gave birth to the missionary society, which is classified under the broad heading of "Para-church". Can this innovation be allowed?



In my opinion, Presbyterian church polity rules out the need for such things as missionary work can be run through the oversight of church courts.


----------



## KMK (Feb 23, 2008)

What about Wycliff Bible Society? From what I have seen they do awesome stuff. However, they are not under any denominational umbrella that I know of. Have you met any of these types, Pergie?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 23, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> okay....
> 
> how about voluntarily associations then, such as William Carey called for in his "Enquiry." This gave birth to the missionary society, which is classified under the broad heading of "Para-church". Can this innovation be allowed?



William Carey planted a seed that can never be minimalized. A great pioneer. Daniel thoughts on oversight of church courts is ok to the end of their being made aware, but not for permission of such endeavor. The 'courts' of Crey's days were overwhelmingly against him going to the heathen. Thank God he listened to our Lord instead of them. "Courts' have the tendancy to act like Saul's armour. Way to heavy and burdensome to accomplish the mission at hand. Hence David took it off.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 23, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > okay....
> ...



Its true that they were against him; but if they had been in favour of his proposals this would have helped his labour's.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 2, 2008)

Do your churches support anyone from "parac church" orgs?


----------



## KMK (Mar 2, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Do your churches support anyone from "parac church" orgs?



We have in the past supported a couple of missionaries with Wycliffe that are working in Papua New Guinea.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 3, 2008)

KMK: Do you ever feel as if you are supporting an unbiblical practice by supporting those that desire to translate God's Word for those who don't have it? And, could local Presbyterian churches train linguists and send them like Wycliffe does?

I received criticism by some who stated that all missions must stem and pass through the local church and the parachurches should - to be biblical - all be disbanded. But, I heard much of this while getting some of the best training I ever have had through SIL - a service that cannot be replicated by individual churches, but only as a result of broad cooperation and a more general doctrinal statement so that more Christians could pass through their walls and be trained.


I actually have a church now that prays for me but cannot officially support me because I work through a parachurch. There is no other doctrinal difference except my "sinful tolerance of parachurches.." They revere Carey highly and do not realize that he championed the voluntary association.


----------



## MW (Mar 3, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> The 'courts' of Crey's days were overwhelmingly against him going to the heathen.



This was a meeting of ministers, not a church court. Further, the story concerning Ryland and Carey is anecdotal, and unhistorical. See the footnote on this page: The Work of Faith, the Labour of ... - Google Book Search. Blessings!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 3, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > The 'courts' of Crey's days were overwhelmingly against him going to the heathen.
> ...



Interesting, I was always led to believe that the story was true.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 3, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > The 'courts' of Crey's days were overwhelmingly against him going to the heathen.
> ...



Hence I put in in quotes matthew. Either way, It is 100% true certain baptists at the time were vehemently against his efforts. This cannot be denied


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 3, 2008)

My concern with 'innovations' is the buggaboo/strawman/bogeyman under every bed/slippery slope (call it what you will) that you will innovate until you come to the misty mountain top where Finney summed it all up: "Is it fit to convert sinners with?"



> A question you need to ask Perg, is whether or not these things may "by good and necessary consequence be deduced from Scripture", and thus divinely ordained? If these things may be legitimately deduced from Scripture, then they are not innovations.



With that as the litmus test, can we say conclusively that if it fails that test, it is not a legit 'innovation'?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 3, 2008)

what about the puppet team?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 3, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> My concern with 'innovations' is the buggaboo/strawman/bogeyman under every bed/slippery slope (call it what you will) that you will innovate until you come to the misty mountain top where Finney summed it all up: "Is it fit to convert sinners with?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So, by good and necessary consequence, which of these is permissible:
• Blanketing an area with radio and/or TV broadcasts and telling listeners/watchers to write in for a correspondence course. In similar fashion, having a website ministry.

• Going door-to-door and asking people to come to a Sunday meeting.
• Conducting huge tent or stadium crusades and hoping that converts could be gathered together afterwards to form a worshipping church.
• Translating the Bible into the local language and praying that the co-translators will be the first ones to come to know Christ.
• Building a huge, beautiful church building then inviting people to come fill it (like the Alliance did in Lima, Peru).
• Starting home Bible Studies among interested people and hopefully gathering them together into a church at a later date.
• Starting cell groups with the goal to making them multiply within a few months (a la Ralph Neighbor).
• Massive literature distribution (a la Every Home Crusade).
• Friendship evangelism, especially in closed countries.
• Starting hospitals, schools, and orphanages with the hopes that people will be exposed to the gospel while there.
• Doing community development in the hopes that social action will be interpreted as Christ’s agape love for the world.
• Concentrating on planting a church planting movement—the big buzz word today in missions. (list compiled by another)

Also include radio and music and film ministry. Throw in puppet show ministry, storying, and internet evangelism.


What can be drawn from Scripture. Paul seemed quite flexible in method and yet had a Gospel core he preached. Compare acts 14 and Acts 17 for Paul's rhetorical variety. Paul even quoted pagans and preached in pagan debate arenas. Paul preached, explained, wrote letters and seemed to attempt to communicate by all possible means at his disposal.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 3, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> what about the puppet team?



Or the Power Team?


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 3, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> what about the puppet team?



If that's not contextualization for the Sesame Street set I don't know what is.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 3, 2008)

What about it? That is my intent in the OP.

What is allowed, not allowed, and why? And then what can we do legitimately and what do we need to discard.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 3, 2008)

In all seriousness, the medium determines the message. Could a puppet team express the comedy of the gospel? Sure. Could a puppet team express the gravity of the gospel? Doubtful. Puppets are structurally silly and will slant any message with silliness (I was on the church puppet team for 5 years in my baptist days).


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 3, 2008)

Ivanhoe: 

Agreed. 

Culturally a puppet is a kid's thing and deep things are not conveyed through puppetry.

What if there was a culture where deep things are conveyed though puppets? Like some would argue Indonesian wayang golek puppet shows?



Movies are for internet. But documentaries are often serious and true. Where do visual media fit into evangelism then? Does the media undercut the Message? And if so, how about radio dramatic enactments of Bible stories?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 3, 2008)

Case sensitive. I would simply want to ask, on a case by case basis, "how does this medium shape, positively or negatively, the message?"


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 3, 2008)

AH, so you DO believe in contextualization of some sort! Just not the faddish abuses of it by our US peers.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> AH, so you DO believe in contextualization of some sort! Just not the faddish abuses of it by our US peers.



Perhaps...I said that there exists possibilities of contextualization that are not idolatrous, but at the same time I couldn't think of any examples.

A Little Leaven

Go to that site, and then tell me if you don't think 99% of contextualization is idolatrous.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 3, 2008)

Plus, there is a huge difference in how the American church growth crowd has adopted contextualization and applied it to every little niche group in America.

I would argue that missionaries (and the Apostles) have been doing contextualization for centuries.... as the Gospel jumps from one culture to another, culture meaning a distinct ethno-linguistic group.

Missionaries adopt many elements of local dress, mannerisms and food and housing. The Bible is translated into hundreds of languages. Churches meet and gather in local flavors all through the world as the Gospel spreads to different ethno-linguistic groups.


99% of the contextualization efforts on that link ARE awful...but that is the whole point of the website. They are not going to post all thousand or so Bible translations, all the pictures of missionaries who adopt some elements of native dress, manners and food. The idolatrous stuff is more interesting.




Bible translations make the Bible understandable to other cultures. Even church architecture and layout can be changed to fit cultural patterns. I raise my hands to pray depending on the context of those I pray with. I have even been given the holy kiss, when a firm handshake appears to be the Anerican standard.

Adoniram Judson began to dress and sit in the eastern fashion and taught the Gospel from a zayat - like a little gazebo that the Burmese religious teachers used. Only then did he gain a hearing as a religious teacher.


Replace relavance with meaningfulness or understandability. We must make the Gospel understandable across wide chasms of language and culture. The church growth crowd have focused on relevance rather than understandability across minute dofferences in American cultural tastes. Contextualization used overseas is much different from the fads of the US church


----------



## KMK (Mar 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> KMK: Do you ever feel as if you are supporting an unbiblical practice by supporting those that desire to translate God's Word for those who don't have it? And, could local Presbyterian churches train linguists and send them like Wycliffe does?



I have had no reason to believe that our money was not well spent. I know that my church could not, in its current condition, train linguists to go out in the jungle to learn a solely verbal language, create a written language based on that verbal language, teach that language to a group of people who have never even seen letters before, all the while translating the Bible into that new written language. (And preach the gospel at the same time)



Pergamum said:


> I received criticism by some who stated that all missions must stem and pass through the local church and the parachurches should - to be biblical - all be disbanded. But, I heard much of this while getting some of the best training I ever have had through SIL - a service that cannot be replicated by individual churches, but only as a result of broad cooperation and a more general doctrinal statement so that more Christians could pass through their walls and be trained.
> 
> 
> I actually have a church now that prays for me but cannot officially support me because I work through a parachurch. There is no other doctrinal difference except my "sinful tolerance of parachurches.." They revere Carey highly and do not realize that he championed the voluntary association.



It seems to me a ministry that is 'the result of broad cooperation' is still a ministry that 'stems from and passes through' the local church. Isn't 99% of missions done through 'broad cooporation'? How many local churches have the resources to train, send and support missionaries all by themselves? We can't all be Saddleback!

Perhaps I do not understand what a 'parachurch' is. A group of churches cooperating with each other is not a 'parachurch' organization is it? I thought parachurch oganizations were nonprofit organizations without any church supervision.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 3, 2008)

Some say that churches should plant churches. And that is true and false. It is always only 1 or 2 from those churches that plant churches; but it is through the sending of churches as a whole. 

Those few churhc planters usually need to voluntarily associate with others and even form other entities for training etc. I.e. most mission training centers are not inside one church, but are spearate buildings with board of directors from representative churches or the agencies that serve those churches.

There is usually a need for greater specialization than a local church can provide and thus a parachurch is born.

The parachurch then is anyone of those groups that work alongside the church in cooperative efforts in order to reach a more specific goal than that of the whole church (i.e. evangelism, translation, radio ministry, etc). Some forget about the church, however, like the Promise Keepers.


Therefore, Wycliffe is a parachurch. Mostmission agencies are parachurches. The Promise Keepers are a parachurch, and etc.


----------



## elnwood (Mar 4, 2008)

Many seminaries, even Reformed ones, do not operate under a denomination but work with various like-minded denominations. So aren't they para-church ministries also?


----------



## KMK (Mar 4, 2008)

From Wiki:



> Parachurch organizations are vehicles by which Christians work collaboratively both outside of and across their denominations to engage with the world in social welfare and evangelism.
> These bodies can be businesses, non-profit corporations, or private associations. They generally operate without sponsorship of any particular church or association of churches, while attempting to avoid encroaching on roles traditionally belonging to churches alone. They offer centralized efficiency of mission and operation to accomplish specialized ministry tasks that independent churches without denominational or associational strength are not able to accomplish on a larger national or international scale.


----------

