# Missionary Philosophy of the PCA



## sastark (Aug 1, 2005)

While doing research on Reformed churches in Chile, I was browsing the PCA Mission To the World (MTW) web site. I keep running across phrases like "They will be seeking to reach *upper class Chileans*, an unreached people group" or "in Santiago, Chile working with the unreached people group of *middle and upper classes*." 

Is it part of the stated missionary philosophy of the PCA to target middle/upper class economic groups? 

I can see the idea behind it - convert the influential and gain control of the government. (At least, that is the reason behind it that I see.) But, honestly, I'm not sure I could support something like that (that targets upper-class citizens). I dunno, am I wrong here?


----------



## BrianBowman (Aug 1, 2005)

> Is it part of the stated missionary philosophy of the PCA to target middle/upper class economic groups?



This seems to be my experience with the general demographic of the PCA, although men like Mo Leverit of desirestreet ministries are "breaking this stereotype". I will say that in our local PCA families have been sponsored to come to America from 3rd-World countries and there is a healthly emphasis on missions.

My wife and I came out of a "Dispensational Sect" that, while reeking with "sideways doctrine" and excessive veneration for its leaders, has much diversity in poor-to-working class congregants (in America and around the World) and historically (up until a recent split) one of the most vigorous missions emphasis of any Church in America.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 1, 2005)

One of the things that I have never understood about the PCA is the way missions - inside the country, primarily - are done. (apart from what seems to me to be a completely secularized pastoral "placement" process with MNA - that's for another thread, perhaps) 

Why is it that "this group" or "that group" or "these people" or "that people" have to be specifically targetted? Am I the only one offended by this selective targetting of particular groups (for whatever reason)? Why is it that *any* particular group should be singled out as the primary reason for a given church plant? Is it not enough that all are destined for HELL without Christ? Is it not enough that it is the chief end of man (ALL kinds of men) to glorify God and enjoy him forever? Why, then, the "strategic plans" that keep cropping up everywhere? What in the world is the church doing things in the way of worldly business? 

Todd


----------



## Presbyrino (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> I can see the idea behind it - convert the influential and gain control of the government. (At least, that is the reason behind it that I see.) But, honestly, I'm not sure I could support something like that (that targets upper-class citizens). I dunno, am I wrong here?



I think perhaps it is more basic than gaining control of the goverment. I think it might have to do with the possiblity of establishing missions that will later have the ability to self-support themseleves, without having to be constantly dependent on outside support. Also, once these missions become self-supporting churches, they would be able to establish missions in their own countries in poorer areas. 

My


----------



## re4md (Aug 2, 2005)

Todd Pedlar said:



> One of the things that I have never understood about the PCA is the way missions - inside the country, primarily - are done. (apart from what seems to me to be a completely secularized pastoral "placement" process with MNA - that's for another thread, perhaps)
> 
> Why is it that "this group" or "that group" or "these people" or "that people" have to be specifically targetted? *Am I the only one offended by this selective targetting of particular groups (for whatever reason)? *Why is it that *any* particular group should be singled out as the primary reason for a given church plant? Is it not enough that all are destined for HELL without Christ? Is it not enough that it is the chief end of man (ALL kinds of men) to glorify God and enjoy him forever? Why, then, the "strategic plans" that keep cropping up everywhere? What in the world is the church doing things in the way of worldly business?



No, you are not the only one bothered by this targeting and labeling in the PCA. From my perspective, there seems to be a penchant for this in the PCA. 

in my opinion we can classify (stereotype?) people all we want and think we are being sensitive and thoughtful but the truth is we are not so different when it comes to the gospel. It bothers me that we so often feel we need to target groups of people with specificically taylored gospel presentations to "meet them where they are" when where they "are" is simply in need of Christ and His gospel.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by re4md_
> Todd Pedlar said:
> 
> 
> ...



Precisely. The PCA seems to be under the influence of some among the powers that be who believe that we've (I should stop saying "we" - prior to our move to NE Iowa - no man's land as far as the PCA goes - I was an RE in the PCA) got to create these designer "niche" churches that cater to this or that special interest group. This church has to be for the mid-town yuppie crowd, this one has to be for the korean immigrants, this one for the young parents, this one for the rich urbanite, etc. Where is Paul's prohibition AGAINST selectivism, where is James's prohibition AGAINST favoring one group over another in all this? It is maddening that the blatant hypocrisy of the situation is ignored or missed by those in power. 

Rather, as you have said, ALL must be called, from WHATEVER walk of life, to a place in which God's word is rightly proclaimed, and the human
(I say HUMAN, not yuppie, not hippy, not retiree, not Gen-X, but HUMAN) condition of being totally and utterly lost and without hope, dead in trespasses and sins, is CLEARLY proclaimed, and ALL are brought to conviction of that condition, to their knees before the Almighty God. Why is the simple preaching of the Word, WITHOUT regard to "special needs" or "special interests" sufficient? Why? What have we done to the church? 


Yours,

Todd


----------



## re4md (Aug 2, 2005)

Well, not only do we tend to classify/specify our churches and the groups we seek to reach, there is also a tendency to classify each other within the denomination:

http://www.epcnewark.org/recread/TKeller_CultureofthePCA-rev.pdf

sigh. . .


----------



## Presbyrino (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> Why is it that "this group" or "that group" or "these people" or "that people" have to be specifically targetted? Am I the only one offended by this selective targetting of particular groups (for whatever reason)? Why is it that *any* particular group should be singled out as the primary reason for a given church plant? Is it not enough that all are destined for HELL without Christ? Is it not enough that it is the chief end of man (ALL kinds of men) to glorify God and enjoy him forever? Why, then, the "strategic plans" that keep cropping up everywhere? What in the world is the church doing things in the way of worldly business?
> Todd



I don't quite see the offence here, nor do I see some motive fueled by political correctness by our PCA brethren. I think the reason that missions are "strategically" "targeted", is in response to reaching people in the way people are grouped and where they are. 

For example lets look at these verses:
Act 13:46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 
Act 13:47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, "'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" 

I see two groups targeted here Jews & Gentiles. So the principle here is the Gospel came to the Jew first and then is to go to the *gentiles* to the *ends of the earth*. Practically speaking how does this work it self out? To reach the gentiles "to the ends of the earth", there are many barriers to be considered: geographic, language, cultural etc. 

Would bringing the gospel to a group of people in their native language or translating the bible into various languages be considered "specifically tayloring gospel" or "specifically targeting a group"? Would sending missionaries to specifically, targeted groups of people around the world, be considered "meeting them where they are"? 

Was the gospel being brought to the english-speaking peoples for the first time a specifically, targeted, taylored gospel that met the english-speaking people where they were?


----------



## sastark (Aug 2, 2005)

Steve,

That is why in my original post I specified that I have a problem with targetting specific *economic* groups. Obviously, a missionary is sent to a geographic area in order to spread the Gospel among a certian, specific people (for example, a missionary to Tokyo is sent to spread the Gospel to the Japanese, specifically the Japanese in Tokyo). Where the problem arrises, I believe, is in saying "I am going to Tokyo to preach the Gospel to the upper-class Japanese in Tokyo." I don't think we have any example in Scripture of this sort of thing.

That having been said, I think I will seek out native-Chilean churches when I go there. Lord willing, we will find a faithful Reformed church.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 2, 2005)

I didn't mean to confuse the issue, folks, with concerns about church planting/targetting within the US. It's a separate issue with which I still have significant concerns. 

Certainly James 2 has something to say about favoring the rich, and I think to target the 'upper class' is mistaken on the merits of that text alone. I just don't get the reasoning behind going to a particular area and targetting a single group - like, say, yuppies in Manhattan... it rather turns my stomach.

Todd


----------



## sastark (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> it rather turns my stomach.



Yeah, it does the same to me, Todd. I was just wanting to make sure I wasn't out in left field on this one. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.


----------



## mikeberkeley (Aug 2, 2005)

Well,as a missionary to a tribal group, I think that I have to wade into this one. I have two points:
The first is to protect the proper use of the term "unreached people group". I believe that this term was first coined by Ralph Winter at the US Center for World Missions. The concept of "People Group" comes from Rev 5:9: "with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation". The conotation here is ethic groups - even the word "nation" in the Greek implies a tribal group like the "Cherokee Nation" as opposed to a political entity. John Piper has an excellent discussion of this in his book "Let the Nations Rejoice" where he expounds on God's heart for tribal groups. Using the term "unreached people group" in reference to wealthy Chileans is a misuse of the term (in my opinion). Rather, they are a demographic target group.

My second point would be whether we ought to specifically target the wealthy and powerful. Type the word "rich" or "wealthy" into a computer concordance program and read all the verses that come up; and then decide whether a denomination should specifically target the wealthy for a church plant. It is a common strategy for Christian groups to target the wealthy and powerful, and I can understand the rational - but is a perilous path to take. I think that the only thing that we can say for sure is that if we pursue the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor and powerless, then we do so without God's blessings.


----------



## sastark (Aug 2, 2005)

Dr. Berkeley,

Thank you for your post! May I ask what group/denomination you are affiliated with? I'm wondering if I could contact your denomination or missionary organization to see if they would know of any Reformed churches in Chile. I'm e-mailing everyone I can. 

Thanks!


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Aug 2, 2005)

I have to agree with Michael Berkeley. He came up with a better researched answer than I ever could. My family is deeply into missionary work and I never heard (within my own family anyway) anyone going after a particular socio-economic group. Where the rich and the poor speak the same language, have the same culture, enjoy the same country etc... then I fail to see many relevant changes one must do in responce. Of course if you have a food bank as a ministry then you will get people who are hungry...

What would people then say about targeting different religious groups? Obviously on an outreach for example Buddhists would have different side issues from Muslims (plus you do not want to offend someone without reason so it would be prudent to change something of your approach depending on the ethnic/religious group). What do you all say?


----------



## mikeberkeley (Aug 2, 2005)

Seth - my home church denomination is Baptist General Convention, which sadly is not very reformed. You might try contacting my boss, Barrie Flitcroft, who is a Church of Scotland minister (very Presbyterian) at [email protected]
Barrie runs Equip, Inc - www.equipinternational.com - but I warn you - if you tell Barrie that some Presbyterians are specifically targeting the wealthy with their church plants, he's going to go ballistic.
Blessings - Mike Berkeley


----------



## sastark (Aug 2, 2005)

Thank you, Dr. Berkeley. I will send Rev. Flitcroft an e-mail.

Fraser, the great commission is to make disciples of all nations. The definition of a "nation" is something I studied a lot in college, being a Geography major and all. I think you would have to decide if the Buddhists qualify as a different "nation" than the Muslims, if they are both in the same country (and, in case you were not aware, there is a big difference between a *nation* and a *country*). I can see a missionary being sent to the Cherokiee Nation, for example, becuase the Cherokiee, though part of the United States, have their own language, religion, culture, etc. They were also, however, located in a specific Geographic region for a long time. If you have situation where you have Muslims and Buddhists living in the same city, speaking the same language, but practicing two different religions, I believe that any missionary sent to that city would have to be prepared to preach the Gospel to both Buddhists and Muslims. Otherwise, I think we run into the problem of becoming respectors of men. We favor one person more than another based on their religion. I do not believe the Great Commission allows for this.


----------

