# Thoughts on the man killed by tribal peoples in the Andamans?



## Pergamum (Nov 24, 2018)

What are your thoughts on the young man killed on North Sentinel island last week?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 24, 2018)

April 1874 - the British Empire's treasury paid £500 for David Livingstone's funeral (around £38,000 today). A steamer carried his corpse and he received an artillery salute in Southampton. His body lay in state at the Royal Geographical Society's offices for two days and crowds thronged to pay their respects.

David Livingstone died after contacting many uncontacted tribes and opening up Africa to commerce. But his primary objective was always to tell them about Jesus. He was hailed as a hero.

November 2019 - Neckbeard atheists using the internet in their mom's basements mock a medically trained young man killed trying to go ashore to an unreached tribe.

One metric of how far the West has fallen.

Reactions: Like 3 | Sad 1


----------



## Elizabeth (Nov 24, 2018)

Not to mention the irony of the SJWs lauding a people protecting their borders.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## earl40 (Nov 24, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> What are your thoughts on the young man killed on North Sentinel island last week?



What was this poor souls job? Was he plummer who did this as a side job?


----------



## Edward (Nov 24, 2018)

The most puzzling aspect of the story to me was that one of the gifts he brought was a football. What did he expect to happen the first time he threw them a pass? 

What were the risks of him introducing new diseases to an isolated culture? 

He comes across in the media as well intentioned but somewhat clueless, but, then again, who can believe what they see in the media these days?


----------



## iainduguid (Nov 24, 2018)

Edward said:


> The most puzzling aspect of the story to me was that one of the gifts he brought was a football. What did he expect to happen the first time he threw them a pass?
> 
> What were the risks of him introducing new diseases to an isolated culture?
> 
> He comes across in the media as well intentioned but somewhat clueless, but, then again, who can believe what they see in the media these days?


I'm assuming it was a real football, not the American version shaped more like a rugby ball .

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edward (Nov 24, 2018)

iainduguid said:


> I'm assuming it was a real football, not the American version shaped more like a rugby ball .



Both the American and British press refer to it as a football, but it's too much to expect the media to be careful in their reporting. He apparently did coach soccer at some point, so it may well have been a soccer ball instead of a football. A Frisbee might have made more sense than either.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 24, 2018)

The gifts seemed to be symbols of goodwill. We've done the same. The children did not play together when I first entered. To see them all start playing together is a very big sign of progress and breaking the ice. 

He was a wilderness EMT and seeemed qualified for a role like this. He spent much time in different wildernesses.

He also knew the risks.

The media lies.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jw (Nov 24, 2018)

I don't know all the story behind it, but his intentions seemed good. I

wonder if he had some kind of commission for this missionary endeavor? I read at one point that one of the arrows pierced his Bible, and he turned back. Is that accurate? If so, and he knew their previous ire toward outsiders, I don't know if it was a good idea to keep attempting such. Also, does this tribe know English? Was speaking to them in English going to be effective? 

I'll say this, I don't think murder is justified; if they're simply unwelcoming and not wanting outsiders, they probably should find another way to deal with it (except for necessary defense). I'm curious what their interpretation of his words and actions were.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 24, 2018)

While his death is, in a number of respects, quite different than the circumstances surrounding the martyrdom of David Livingstone, some of the public reaction, which I've seen online, is shameful and inexcusable.

If the young man was misguided in some ways (including his training, the question of whose authority he was under and to whom was he accountable?), his death is, nonetheless, a tragedy, because it was, on his part, an attempt to bring the gospel to those that lacked it.

We do live in a time in which opprobrium comes in heaps to those who did what he did (or anything like it), an action that formerly would have been celebrated. It is a sign of the sorry times in which we live.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2018)

Joshua said:


> If so, and he knew their previous ire toward outsiders, I don't know if it was a good idea to keep attempting such.



JOSH,
From what I have read, it was well documented historically that this tribe was always hostile and even the gov't said to 'leave them alone'. 



> Also, does this tribe know English? Was speaking to them in English going to be effective?



Again, from what I read, no one has gotten close enough to the tribe to even determine if they even have a language...


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 24, 2018)

Missionaries we respect in the future have often been viewed as foolish in the present.

Didn't Carey have too many marriage struggles to go? I question the wisdom.

Hudson Taylor had weird views on support and funds. I question the wisdom.

David Brainerd was an emotional mess most of the time and drove himself to an early grave. I question the wisdom.

David Livingstone was reckless and drove his men to dangerous lengths. I question the wisdom.

George Stott had one leg and wanted to go to China. What org in their right mind would allow that. I question the wisdom.

Those foolish missionaries in Ecuador. A frail lady with polio in the mountains of Irian Jaya among the Kimyal who couldn't even walk right. And now a young man who was an experienced wilderness EMT who was trying to reach tribal peoples in North Sentinel island.

All of these fools. I question the wisdom!

Over and over this week all over the internet, even American Christians degrading this young man who was killed in a good cause, "I question the wisdom," "I question the wisdom," "I question the wisdom."

---1 Corinthians 4:10: We are fools for the sake of Christ, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute."

---II Corinthians 12:2, " For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities...."

----"I am a fool for Christ...whose fool are you?" (Brother Andrew).

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 3


----------



## Filter (Nov 24, 2018)

As a general principle, I've found that people tend to speak pejoratively about people who actually live according to their convictions. Whether its subconscious envy in someone living with purpose or a reaction to inward shame of not having any of their own, I'm not really sure. Perhaps this man didn't take into consideration things he should have - but I won't condescend someone who is willing to do something that only a few would dare, especially in trying to be obedient to Christ.

Reactions: Edifying 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 24, 2018)

Whatever his training, to the media a Christian is a Christian, and the real attack of the media is on Christ Himself.

It's maddening when you hear the world... using logic they'd never bring against their own endeavors.

This from Dr. David Murray three years ago:

"We Don't Get to Choose our Martyrs"

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Nov 24, 2018)

Whatever his intentions, it was folly for him to go for these reasons:

The government had forbidden it.
He had to bribe fishermen (bribing is against God's law) to break the law and take him there. Those fishermen are now in trouble with the government.
After the first hail of arrows, he should have shaken the dust off his feet. He was clearly not welcome there.

I have a few questions:
Has his sending church issued a statement?
What is his sending church?
What was his strategy to communicate? Did he intend to live among them until he could learn their language and thus tell them about Jesus?
We may never know some of these, but I sure am curious.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Silas22 (Nov 24, 2018)

Filter said:


> As a general principle, I've found that people tend to speak pejoratively about people who actually live according to their convictions. Whether its subconscious envy in someone living with purpose or a reaction to inward shame of not having any of their own, I'm not really sure.



Now that's wisdom. Take heed, internet users.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Whatever his intentions, it was folly for him to go for these reasons:
> 
> The government had forbidden it.



Agreed, and for good reason, historically speaking.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 25, 2018)

(1) If it was folly to go because it was dangerous than it was folly for missionaries to ever attempt to reach malarial Africa, which became known as the graveyard of missions due to the high rates of death.




(2) All Nations University trained and sent him. He had previous experience in other heard places like Iraq and was a wilderness EMT. If anyone was suited, it was him.

"All Nations (allnations.us), an international Christian missions training and sending organization, is mourning the reported death of one of its missionaries, John Allen Chau, 27, of Vancouver, Washington."

"A seasoned traveler who was well-versed in cross-cultural issues, Chau had previously taken part in missions projects in Iraq, Kurdistan and South Africa. He joined All Nations as a missionary in 2017 and trained at its North American headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri."

He received good training and experience and had medical skills.



(3) Governments forbade early Christians, too, but we have Acts 5 in our bibles still.



(4) What is the difference between a gift, a bribe, a payment, and a fee? Ben said that he "bribed" the fishermen. Why not just say he paid them?

Early Christians often paid Roman guards to be allowed to visit Christian prisoners or bring them food. I guess the entirety of their actions are evil due to paying those guards to help their Christian friends?

(5) Others have criticized him because he entered without knowing the language. But who actuallly knows their language? This is a common missionary scenario, to enter an unknown region and live until communication is possible. 


(6). Others have criticized him because he was young and adventurous. 

But those writing are usually old and not adventurous. Which is worse?

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Nov 25, 2018)

"It was illegal to contact the tribe; therefore it was wrong."

God's command to evangelize trumps any human law.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## Ben Zartman (Nov 25, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> (1) If it was folly to go because it was dangerous than it was folly for missionaries to ever attempt to reach malarial Africa, which became known as the graveyard of missions due to the high rates of death.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the added information. It will help to amend my opinion somewhat. In the meantime:

I said "bribed" because he paid them to do something illegal. I realize that Christians, and missionaries especially, must at times do illegal things (surely it was illegal to help Paul escape with a basket), but I also believe that God will honor those who endeavour to keep within the law as they serve the Lawgiver. It's a tension, for sure.

It troubles me that he was sent by a para-church, not a church itself. But the whole issue of mission boards is subject for another thread.

I didn't say it's folly to go to dangerous places as such--but Our Lord told the Seventy that if they were not received in one city, they should shake the dust off and move on: the fields are white unto harvest. The danger was not of malaria or dengue or wild beasts--he was clearly unwelcome, as the first hail of arrows indicated. A living dog is better than a dead lion.

Nothing is wrong with being adventurous. I was a little adventurous once. But everything is wrong with being foolhardy. You can be adventurous wisely. However, I say that being one who is now both old and unadventurous, for what it's worth.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Jo_Was (Nov 25, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Thanks for the added information. It will help to amend my opinion somewhat. In the meantime:
> 
> I said "bribed" because he paid them to do something illegal. I realize that Christians, and missionaries especially, must at times do illegal things (surely it was illegal to help Paul escape with a basket), but I also believe that God will honor those who endeavour to keep within the law as they serve the Lawgiver. It's a tension, for sure.
> 
> ...



For what it's worth, it is also against the law in places like North Korea, and many are wary of efforts that target such a 'touchy' area (remember even how a random tourist was lambasted for visiting, how much more would a Christian and his mission look foolhardy), yet we have whispers of Chinese and South Korean brethren reaching out to them and bearing fruit. Perhaps as in the case of the Elliotts, sometimes it takes the "right person," or "time" for a peoples to be receptive, just as N Korean brothers and sisters have been taken into the arms of China and S. Korea likely more effectively than by a random up-and-comer from the US or AU or somewhere where there is less connection to their plight.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 25, 2018)

"Neckbeard atheists using the internet in their *mom's basements*"....Not sure I would even take a first glance much a second glance at what they wrote. They can't even move out of their mom's house and be a real adult.


----------



## Aharown (Nov 25, 2018)

Regardless of this mans intentions, it makes me aggravated to think that the governing authorities will not likely hold these people guilty of murder.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 25, 2018)

About "shaking the dust off": 

- You've got to actually contact and engage a group before you can shake the dust off your feet. That has not yet been done.


About parachurch orgs:

-He was trained and sent by All Nations University. He was not some ill-equipped Lone Ranger. We can sit around and bemoan the actions of parachurches in our armchairs...or we can bemoan our own inaction as true churches to send out more.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 25, 2018)

Stephen in Acts 7 should have taken better precautions. He was being foolish and should have toned down his words.

The Apostle Paul acted foolishly and knew what was in store for him and still went ahead anyway. I question his wisdom.

William Tyndale really should have listened to the authorities. I mean, Europe already had a bible anyway in Latin. He should've have been more wise and taken more precautions. He was doing things illegally.

Brother Andrew really shouldn't have smuggled those bibles into Communist countries. Those countries were sovereign and made it clear that they did not want Christian evangelism there anyway.

---This is what Christians on the internet sound like this week sitting in judgment of a young man trying to do his best to glorify God.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## Edward (Nov 25, 2018)

@Pergamum

It is, I suppose, fine for Baptists to criticize those who criticize the deceased young man, but the Presbyterians on the board, at least, are bound by the 10 Commandments and the teachings thereon.



> The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves ....



Foolhardy risks are contra-Confessional.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 25, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> (3) Governments forbade early Christians, too, but we have Acts 5 in our bibles still.



I think the difference here was not that they outlawed evangelism, but any outside peoples, secondary to hostility towards any outsiders.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 25, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> About "shaking the dust off":
> 
> - You've got to actually contact and engage a group before you can shake the dust off your feet. That has not yet been done.
> 
> ...



I doubt that the point about parachurches was a pragmatic one about training and preparedness, rather it was a principled point reflecting a concern for serious ecclesiastical error. If one takes it upon himself to "evangelize," whether locally or abroad, and no matter how well trained or assisted by some organization, apart from the body to which Christ has granted the keys to the kingdom, a body with fellow elders, courts, discipline, etc., then he is being schismatic. Some of my good friends are independent missionaries and, while I can recognize many laudable things that they are doing, I cannot support them financially and thus participate in their work as I believe that they are attempting good but in a sinful manner. The ends do not justify the means, nor did Christ give ministers a pass on _jus divinum_ Presbyterianism if they don't have a chapel full of congregants to preach to.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 25, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> I think the difference here was not that they outlawed evangelism, but any outside peoples, secondary to hostility towards any outsiders.



I have to ask then, how else was God going to call his elect in this generation among them? Illegal, yes; sinful? It was an act of mercy.

I readily grant this is not a bad law in the sense that anti-Christian laws are. It's very reasonable for most peoples' circumstances. Still, whether good or bad in other respects, it cuts off these people from the Gospel. Judging by their hostility, the Gospel is what they need. And it'd take a work of revival in India itself for such a law to be changed to allow missionaries to go, as proselytization by Christians in ordinary circumstances is very unwelcome in India. In this case, though unintended, India has set itself up to prevent mercy on the souls of these men and women.

So, Christians are not in mind in that Indian law, but its effect is prohibition of the Great Commission, prohibition to make disciples of the nation on that island. Any hindrance to the spread of the Gospel will always be counted unrighteous.

If we obey India's law, it's a sure bet the Gospel will never get to those on the island who are there at this moment, and they will certainly go to hell. And to date, they've got the blood of one martyr on their shore, and their condemnation is already far greater; for if Christ does not convert them, this young man will rise in judgment against them someday.

I believe the devil makes such hostile demons of island natives in order to prevent missionaries like this one though they don't know it. They are lock and key reserved for judgment unless Christ frees them, no Gospel has likely ever been there, but such places are becoming fewer and fewer. Slowly the devil is losing strongholds like this, but they are strongholds, and it'll take no ordinary effort to see them converted. However, our prayer is that strongholds like this will be brought down, as merited by the Second Petition. If we pray that, we need to be willing to participate, even if we follow the Head of the Church and the apostles in spilling our own blood, and we only shake the dust off our feet when we ourselves know we must (reluctantly) hand them over to judgment.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 25, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> I doubt that the point about parachurches was a pragmatic one about training and preparedness, rather it was a principled point reflecting a concern for serious ecclesiastical error. If one takes it upon himself to "evangelize," whether locally or abroad, and no matter how well trained or assisted by some organization, apart from the body to which Christ has granted the keys to the kingdom, a body with fellow elders, courts, discipline, etc., then he is being schismatic. Some of my good friends are independent missionaries and, while I can recognize many laudable things that they are doing, I cannot support them financially and thus participate in their work as I believe that they are attempting good but in a sinful manner. The ends do not justify the means, nor did Christ give ministers a pass on _jus divinum_ Presbyterianism if they don't have a chapel full of congregants to preach to.



[I tremble to speak these words]

Then the next question is, are we the orthodox Christians who have it altogether willing to do anything like it? We can disagree with how John Chau did his work and perhaps be right, but I've not ever known anyone in any denomination I've been in to say "Send me to the cannibals!" Not in the present day. So, perhaps we could rightly rebuke Chau in some areas (I don't know enough about him), but in this one I think he rebukes us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 25, 2018)

He wrote a long letter and left it with the fishermen to deliver to his family should he be killed. Apparently the fishermen have been arrested and charged with his murder. At least one article stated that 'fact'. Here is an account with quotes from the letter ;
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/world/asia/andaman-missionary-john-chau.html


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 25, 2018)

Hi Jake,
In my opinion, the law placed intact by the Indian Gov't was for the safety of its citizens and visitors. *I could be arrested for walking out into traffic on the highway and setting up a makeshift pulpit. The arrest would be, not against the gospel per se, but the safety of myself and the drivers I would be endangering. 

As I said, it is historically documented that this tribe was extremely hostile to any outsiders-in fact, have killed people in the past; there wasn't any hint of their civility in anything I have read. in my opinion, he could have used the water as a safe haven and gave witness, somehow, from afar. Rafts of food and such; bibles in various languages. It would seem logical that this was the way to go, at least, initially (for one's own safety).


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 25, 2018)

No one even knows their language. How do we get Bibles to them?


----------



## Tom Hart (Nov 25, 2018)

Edward said:


> Foolhardy risks are contra-Confessional.



Those silly old Covenanters and their conventicles...


----------



## Ben Zartman (Nov 25, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Stephen in Acts 7 should have taken better precautions. He was being foolish and should have toned down his words.
> 
> The Apostle Paul acted foolishly and knew what was in store for him and still went ahead anyway. I question his wisdom.
> 
> ...


Brother, you solicited our thoughts on this matter, and our thoughts will necessarily judge in this matter, whether for or against the endeavour.

I too have seen the unkind treatment of this matter by the anti Christian world, and it's deplorable the way they are speaking of it. But here we have a more in-house forum in which to discuss this; the question is not: should the Gospel go out? The question is: what is the right way to reach an isolated tribe who are protected from foreign interference by a well-meaning government, for reasons that are not primarily anti-Gospel?
Though the Gospel will be slandered by the ungodly no matter how it is proclaimed (think of the caricature of missionaries fostered by Somerset Maugham, Rudyard Kipling, James Michener, and Hollywood in general), it seems that breaking all sorts of laws and implicating local fishermen in crimes may be a bad testimony. No one has questioned his intentions here--we have only questioned his methods: a pentecostal-leaning parachurch sending body; a fly-by-night approach to a hostile coast; persistent returns though clearly unwelcome: they considered him an invader, perhaps! If the article is correct that he tried to speak to them in English, what possible good could that do? Surely he knew they couldn't understand?
It looks like the problem of how to reach these people needs more study. The learning of a local language that may be similar? Pressure on the government to allow access? When God is pleased to bring them the Gospel He will surely open doors. In the meantime, those burdened for these people can pray and prepare and learn--they can cry to the Lord of the Harvest. And who knows? perhaps the attention surrounding this tragic disaster will be the very means God uses to bring access to this tribe.
I'm sorry for all concerned that it worked out this way. But I still think his methods were ill-considered.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 25, 2018)

Harley said:


> No one even knows their language. How do we get Bibles to them?



Well then....that destroys your argument in post 29, to a degree. Thats why I said, 'bibles in various languages.'

From what i've read, local linguists don't even know if they even have a language. The missionary must have known that.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Nov 25, 2018)

Harley said:


> No one even knows their language. How do we get Bibles to them?


I expect they're illiterate. They need a preacher. They need a preacher who speaks their language. This requires more preparation than simply landing with gifts. But we know that God is able to do abundantly above all that we ask or think. Let us cry to God for these people.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 25, 2018)

Pray that the Lord will use this event to awaken the Church to the need for more missionary activity on the island.

May the blood of this martyr be the seed of the Church on North Sentinel Island.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 3


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 25, 2018)

Harley said:


> [I tremble to speak these words]
> 
> Then the next question is, are we the orthodox Christians who have it altogether willing to do anything like it? We can disagree with how John Chau did his work and perhaps be right, but I've not ever known anyone in any denomination I've been in to say "Send me to the cannibals!" Not in the present day. So, perhaps we could rightly rebuke Chau in some areas (I don't know enough about him), but in this one I think he rebukes us.



To be fair, there are very few cannibal peoples left among countless people groups needing missionaries and I would consider John Paton and his fellows still relatively recent. That said, confessional Presbyterian denominations generally punch above their weight (which is rather slight in the modern church landscape) in foreign missions, but, of course, there is incredible need for the advance of the gospel and reformation of the church here in our own nation that should and does take up a great deal of our resources.


----------



## Herald (Nov 25, 2018)

Edward said:


> @Pergamum
> 
> It is, I suppose, fine for Baptists to criticize those who criticize the deceased young man, but the Presbyterians on the board, at least, are bound by the 10 Commandments and the teachings thereon.



And confessional Baptists are not?


----------



## JTB.SDG (Nov 25, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> (1) If it was folly to go because it was dangerous than it was folly for missionaries to ever attempt to reach malarial Africa, which became known as the graveyard of missions due to the high rates of death.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pergs,

Can there be a third way of thinking about it without making him either foolish or a hero who couldn't have done anything wrong? Can we impute the purist of desires and hold him up as in many ways a model example of missionary zeal, but at the same time not be afraid to say that he, like us, was a broken vessel and also I might add, a pretty young man, and grant that he might then have had room for a bit of maturing (as well all do)?

Full disclosure, I haven't read any actual articles about this; I've just seen the snippets and picked up a few things about what people are saying on this post.

I will not judge him or say he did something wrong. But I don't think it's unfair to ask questions and think/talk about it so we can all grow in our understanding of these things. The rulers in Jerusalem commanded the apostles not to tell people about Jesus; they responded by saying that was an order they couldn't obey. I could very much be wrong, but it seems to me there are some differences between their situation and situations like this. First of all, that was their own country/city. That's where they were citizens; that was where they lived. Secondly, the command was specifically not to tell people about Jesus (preach in his name). This young man was choosing to go to another country that was not his own. So I see that as different. He was going as a "guest" of a host country. This host country has laws, and it seems, in this case, there were actual (not made up) reasons for prohibiting people from going to this island. I think we can ask questions and talk about it in a way that's healthy without condemning or judging or whatever. My question is not about his zeal or willingness to suffer or whether or not we should keep silent when people tell us we can't talk about Jesus. My question is: Did he have to go to these particular people at this particular time? In doing so he was violating the laws of India, which weren't telling him he couldn't tell people about Jesus but just that he couldn't go to that one island. The same Paul who wrote about the things you mentioned also strongly urged us to obey the governing authorities. I don't think he ever broke any laws in the name of the Great Commission. Should I be involved in ministry? Yes. Should I be involved in a very particular/specific ministry if it means sacrificing my marriage or well-being of my spouse or children? I believe the answer is no. Because I don't think God wants me to have to choose between my ministry and my marriage, if that makes sense .

What if God is ultimately behind countries that are closed to outsiders? I'm just asking the question. What if there is some divine judgment going on that it would be best for us to let run it's course? Does God want us to have to choose between fulfilling the Great Commission and keeping the 10 Commandments? What if there are seasons God is leading us/the church broadly where He wants to send us by using the means of the laws of governments? Surely there is gospel need all over the place in hundreds of countries. I'm just asking the question and I honestly don't have an answer to this. But as I ponder the question more and more I do find myself wondering about these things.

Love ya man.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 25, 2018)

The Great Commission says to go to all nations. To conclude that it is "God's sovereignty" if a nation is closed and, therefore, not make any efforts to reach them is to allow the laws of men to annul the Commission of our Lord.


Many people-groups resist the Gospel. The whole Muslim world resists the Gospel. Should we call it quits then because they make it clear that they do not want us?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 25, 2018)

MISSIONS AND ECCLESIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES:

I often hear of Reformed believers objecting to missionary activity based on ecclesiological differences. "He's from a parachurch..." or "He's an independent missionary..."

Several comments:



-(1) FIRST: Let's be reasonable and "triage" who we work with and who we discard. 

Here's an explanation based on my colleague Dave's blog:

*"What are the theological deal-breakers?*
Dealing specifically with theological issues, Al Mohler presents a helpful way to sort through which issues should be deal-breakers in his article A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity. He says that doctrines should be divided between first, second, and third order doctrines. Below is a brief summary of how he divides up doctrines:

First order doctrines – The fundamentals (authority of Scripture, deity of Christ, justification by faith alone, trinitarian view of the godhead, etc.).

Second order doctrines – Theological differences within the Christian faith which create significant enough boundaries that Christians organize themselves around these doctrines within local churches (modes of baptism, the Lord’s supper, views regarding the spiritual gifts, roles of women within the church, etc.).

Third order doctrines – These are theological differences within the Christian faith that are subtle enough that Christians can be in the same local church and yet have differing views relating to these doctrines (various interpretations of difficult passages relating to the end times, convictions regarding head coverings for women in church, how much a Christian should be involved in politics, methodology in evangelism, etc.).

The issues listed above apply well to those who are staying in the United States, but many of them are less applicable to those working overseas. For instance, in some cultures, women wear head coverings all the time, so disagreement on that practice is a moot point. However, potential missionary teams need to wrestle through everything from translation theories to the idea that they should baptize a believer in secret to avoid persecution from his family.

Further, Mohler’s triage affects missionaries differently depending on their role on the team. For instance, if one is intending on planting a church, then he ought to agree with his team on first and second order issues, down to modes of baptism. For someone involved in medical missions or translation work, however, secondary issues are of lesser importance. First order issues such as the authority of Scripture and justification by faith alone are essential if the work is more than humanitarian. As far as third order issues, those issues will likely serve as lively conversation pieces rather than a foundation by which a church is laid.

So, for the aspiring missionary, there is great potential in partnering with those who share first and sometimes second order doctrines, even if there are some differences among the third order doctrines."


In some places in the world I am just happy to meet ANY believer at all, and I would do all I could to help out that believer. If they were a true believer but still errant in many things, I would STILL be overjoyed to work with them in some very unreached areas.



-(2) SECOND: Many "Non-Reformed" groups have more experience and practical wisdom and know-how than Reformed groups, simply because they send more people out and know better how to train and sustain them.

Be mad if you want, but the more "Truly Reformed" one is, the less likely they are to have good training about the practical aspects of missions. We simply do not send out that many. 

We could do a lot better. 



-(3) THIRD:

It is much worse NOT to send. It is much worse to be passive than to go forth with imperfect methodology. Nobody and no church is 100% perfect.

And...at this point, several will twist my words and gasp and say, "We don't want to send out heretics!" But we are not talking about that. There are many good and solid Christians who are not truly reformed but who are serving faithfully on the mission field. And there are some good training institutions out there who are sending people out to hard places.


----
Of course, if you are the type of person who leaves a church over whether they are wholly EP or not, or over headcoverings or not, you will probably just be mad at my post above, but you are also probably the kind of believer who most needs to read it. 

In a region where there are many churches, we can be choosy...but in some regions of the world we may need to be less choosy about how rigidly we hold to tertiary doctrines of lesser importance. I'd much prefer an animist turning into a Charismatic than remaining an animist.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 25, 2018)

"We are so utterly ordinary, so commonplace, while we profess to know a Power the Twentieth Century does not reckon with.

But we are "harmless," and therefore unharmed.

We are spiritual pacifists, non-militants, conscientious objectors in this battle-to-the-death with principalities and powers in high places.

Meekness must be had for contact with men, but brash, outspoken boldness is required to take part in the comradeship of the Cross.

We are "sideliners" -- coaching and criticizing the real wrestlers while content to sit by and leave the enemies of God unchallenged. The world cannot hate us, we are too much like its own. Oh that God would make us dangerous!”


---- Jim Elliot, late missionary killed by tribals in South America.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Nov 26, 2018)

Herald said:


> And confessional Baptists are not?



Any Baptists that want to subscribe to the Westminster Larger Catechism is, of course, welcome to do so, but I don't hold them to the Presbyterian standards.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 26, 2018)

Trevor,
Not that I disagree with anything u have said and cited, but given that u are experienced in these types of outreaches, would u have handled this situation in a different fashion?


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 26, 2018)

Mods: Should this thread perhaps go to the Coffee Shop where it can't be searched?



Scott Bushey said:


> Well then....that destroys your argument in post 29, to a degree. Thats why I said, 'bibles in various languages.'
> 
> From what i've read, local linguists don't even know if they even have a language. The missionary must have known that.



I'm not sure how. Post #29 is addressing how the Indian law is effectively a barrier to the Great Commission, and an attempt to go "legally" is more likely to guarantee they will remain unreached, as India doesn't even clear the red tape for government officials--let alone reps of a Western religion. In my second post, were it possible to just send over Bible and tracts in various languages that'd be one way to do it, but no one knows what language these people speak, it has no known connections to any continental/local languages, etc. I would concede in today's tech world there can be mightily effective ways to do it, but whatever a missionary did would still be in breach of law.



Ben Zartman said:


> I expect they're illiterate. They need a preacher. They need a preacher who speaks their language. This requires more preparation than simply landing with gifts. But we know that God is able to do abundantly above all that we ask or think. Let us cry to God for these people.



Agreed, but no one knows their language. And if we want to figure it out, the island needs to be intruded against Indian law--even if there was no landing directly on the island and getting speared/shot, perhaps learning by drones, planted microphones, mechanical seagulls or whatever you can think of, the Indian law _will_ need to be broken. 



TheOldCourse said:


> To be fair, there are very few cannibal peoples left among countless people groups needing missionaries and I would consider John Paton and his fellows still relatively recent. That said, confessional Presbyterian denominations generally punch above their weight (which is rather slight in the modern church landscape) in foreign missions, but, of course, there is incredible need for the advance of the gospel and reformation of the church here in our own nation that should and does take up a great deal of our resources.



I have to concede to your point here brother, if it really is a rare thing and situations like the Sentinel are becoming more unique. I suppose for my own ponderings I have to at least ask why we haven't thought to do this. And eventually, _someone_ has to.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 26, 2018)

Harley said:


> Mods: Should this thread perhaps go to the Coffee Shop where it can't be searched?


That's up to Perg. I have called attention to this thread on the PB Facebook page which is public simply due to the excesses of the public reaction and need to show balance. I think it important a believing discussion of this is accessible. But again that is up to Perg.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 26, 2018)

I highly recommend Al Mohler's response to this in this morning's briefing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 26, 2018)

NaphtaliPress said:


> That's up to Perg. I have called attention to this thread on the PB Facebook page which is public simply due to the excesses of the public reaction and need to show balance. I think it important a believing discussion of this is accessible. But again that is up to Perg.



Understood; and on rethinking it, fully agreed.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 26, 2018)

Harley said:


> I'm not sure how. Post #29 is addressing how the Indian law is effectively a barrier to the Great Commission, and an attempt to go "legally" is more likely to guarantee they will remain unreached



The Indian gov't never said that the guy couldn't evangelize the tribe; the law that they instituted has to do with safety, given the tribes history.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 26, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Trevor,
> Not that I disagree with anything you have said and cited, but given that you are experienced in these types of outreaches, would you have handled this situation in a different fashion?



I admire this man deeply.

He was single and did not endanger or plan to leave a family fatherless.

He was well-trained and a Wilderness EMT.

He had previous experience in hard places like Iraq.

He had a school training and behind him. Even though this might be viewed as a parachurch, it was still the larger Body of Christ, and so he was not a Lone Ranger.

The Indian government had recently lifted some of the restrictions to visitors to the Andaman Islands, including North Sentinel Island. Some of these rules were unclear. 

Of course his school could have been reformed.

He counted the cost.

He was young and adventurous....but those are not faults. Better than being old and passive.

He went unarmed and tried to show his friendliness with gifts. Some have mocked these gifts, but "contact goods" like salt and other things that bespoke good intentions happened in New Guinea and other places as well. We brought such items into our region.

I suppose he could have worn a flak jacket. But this might have given an impression of menace. He came trying to show himself to be harmless, knowing the risks.

Had he made contact and set up to live among them he'd be hailed as a hero. But he died and so some are mocking his foolisness.

I will not criticize this man. We neeed 10,000 more like him. It is a shame that he is the first to die to bring these people the Gospel. It is 2018 and only one person has been killed in mission efforts towards this tribe? That reflects badly upon the Church.


I have had arrows shot my way, had machetes swung at me, and have been punched, slapped, spit on, and even bit. It makes me wonder how badly folks would talk about me if I ever got killed. There's probably plenty of PB posts showing me to be a stubborn or combative person. The media would probably dig up Right Wing posts I made to show that I was racist, sexist, or Alt-Right or something. But this man was universally attested to be a nice, humble guy who treated all people well and had the noblest of intentions. 

Much respect for him!

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 26, 2018)

About moving this post: I don't mind, The whole world is talking about him. We've got nothing to hide in our discussions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 26, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> The Indian gov't never said that the guy couldn't evangelize the tribe; the law that they instituted has to do with safety, given the tribes history.



I admit, I'm confused.

He can evangelize the tribe, but he can't go to the island?

My understanding according to the NY Times article cited earlier in this thread is that the nation of India has put the island strictly off-limits, and intend to keep it in "total isolation." No aid, no government intervention, nothing. They want to prevent outside diseases, and they want to "preserve its culture" (why???). There are also patrols to keep people off the island. Chau wrote in his diary that God kept the navy patrols from spotting him. The fisherman are being charged with Chau's murder. The islanders prize their isolation for some reason, they don't ever go mainland (I assume), they don't ever allow visitors, they have a history of trying to keep it this way.

Is there a scenario you envision where he could somehow evangelize them without breaking the mandated isolation by the Indian government? What would it be? I'm sorry, but I'm not grasping your point.

If we're discussing the legitimacy of the law in place, I agree the law is well-intended for safety and is reasonable for most circumstances. I think we are agreed there. My contention is that obedience to this law demands we disregard bringing the Gospel to them, even if that's not what India intends (though they wouldn't complain).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 26, 2018)

I would say that the Great Commission is a higher law.

Brother Andrew illegally smuggled Bibles into the Soviet Union. And William Tyndale illegally translated the Bible.

I just broke national law here last year violating my visa because I helped treat very sick patients while on a spiritual visa, and was put under investigation and almost fined (except for public pressure put on immigration). Some issues are hard to navigate lawfully and still stay true to your conscience.

The laws of man are often flawed and arbitrary.

It is sad the fisherman are being charged. I don't think Chau anticipated or would have wanted this. I also believe the law is well-intended and reasonably for most cases.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 26, 2018)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I highly recommend Al Mohler's response to this in this morning's briefing.


https://albertmohler.com/2018/11/26/briefing-11-26-18/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 26, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> I would say that the Great Commission is a higher law.
> 
> Brother Andrew illegally smuggled Bibles into the Soviet Union. And William Tyndale illegally translated the Bible.
> 
> ...



Yes but it's not so clear that the Great Commission required a particular person to go to a particular country at a particular time. If it did, Paul would have violated it when he didn't go to Asia. If the Great Commission applies to everyone with respect to every people group at every time then even Chau violated it, because it doesn't stop at "Go." But we know that this isn't the case just as we know that you and I are not violating it by not heading over in Chau's wake immediately.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 26, 2018)

And of course, the Bee had to chime in.

https://babylonbee.com/news/man-who...wc20P5J9ikGyKpECUbqdOteANn6S9jH6GkOvGnKmECuFE


----------



## Tom Hart (Nov 26, 2018)

Harley said:


> He can evangelize the tribe, but he can't go to the island?



Maybe he could have sent them some DVDs?


----------



## Edward (Nov 26, 2018)

For those who would like to get more info than is readily available from agenda driven sources. An anthropologist who has visited the island a couple of times:

_Surprised the Sentinelese killed someone: First anthropologist to enter North Sentinel island _

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...orth-sentinel-island/articleshow/66787948.cms

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 26, 2018)

@Edward 

Thanks, Edward: another helpful piece of the puzzle. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## JTB.SDG (Nov 26, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> I would say that the Great Commission is a higher law.
> 
> The laws of man are often flawed and arbitrary.



Pergs,

But is the Great Commission a higher law than the 10 Commandments? We must obey God rather than man, but I don't think we can say we should obey God rather than God; the Great Commission rather than the 10 Commandments.

And in fact, Scripture gives such dignity to the laws of human rulers that it traces the laws of authorities ultimately to God himself: "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves." (Romans 13:1-2). And we know Peter emphasized this even in a specific situation where the authorities were persecuting Christians. He didn't give them an "out" because their authorities were God's enemies: "Submit yourself FOR THE LORD'S SAKE to EVERY human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent BY HIM for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right." (1 Peter 2:13-14). It doesn't seem these Scriptures allow us to say: "Well those are stupid laws or those are laws that go against what I'd like to do for Jesus or those are laws made by people who don't like Christians so I shouldn't have to obey them." Surely just as Acts 5 has its place, so do these other Scriptures? Again, the question isn't whether we should continue to speak about Jesus if someone tells us not to. The Sanhadrin told the apostles: "Don't preach in the name of Jesus." They said sorry, we can't do that. India said: "Don't go to this island." I just don't see these as the same thing. Again, I could very much be wrong. Let's keep grappling in love.

Can I ask you to at least grapple a bit with 1 Peter 2:13-14 as you're asking us to grapple with Matthew 28 and Acts 5? Maybe we can all grapple with all these Scriptures and through it we can all learn/grow in how to fit all these biblical truths together.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 26, 2018)

Edward said:


> For those who would like to get more info than is readily available from agenda driven sources. An anthropologist who has visited the island a couple of times:
> 
> _Surprised the Sentinelese killed someone: First anthropologist to enter North Sentinel island _
> 
> https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...orth-sentinel-island/articleshow/66787948.cms


So he's the one that made them hostile a generation ago...


----------



## Edward (Nov 26, 2018)

arapahoepark said:


> So he's the one that made them hostile a generation ago...



More likely the cop that stole the tools that they needed to feed their families.


----------



## Abeard (Nov 26, 2018)

God never makes us choose one commandment over the other. This man obeyed both the great commission and the 6th commandment. His intent was to SAVE lives by bringing the gospel. Would we call a man foolish for running into a burning building to save the lives of those in it?

I am encouraged by this man's burden for the lost and now by his death millions of Christians are praying for this tribe. Oh Lord, save them!

Brothers and sisters let us pray more fervently for our missionaries .

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> I doubt that the point about parachurches was a pragmatic one about training and preparedness, rather it was a principled point reflecting a concern for serious ecclesiastical error. If one takes it upon himself to "evangelize," whether locally or abroad, and no matter how well trained or assisted by some organization, apart from the body to which Christ has granted the keys to the kingdom, a body with fellow elders, courts, discipline, etc., then he is being schismatic. Some of my good friends are independent missionaries and, while I can recognize many laudable things that they are doing, I cannot support them financially and thus participate in their work as I believe that they are attempting good but in a sinful manner. The ends do not justify the means, nor did Christ give ministers a pass on _jus divinum_ Presbyterianism if they don't have a chapel full of congregants to preach to.


Blah blah.

It is not schismatic. They are just not Reformed. They are doing the best they can with what they know. We need not label them heretics or schismatic and belittle their work. They are Christians who differ in ecclesiology. They are doing more than we are. We are sinful in our inactivity.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 27, 2018)

https://thecripplegate.com/10-lessons-from-the-death-of-john-chau/


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 27, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Blah blah.
> 
> It is not schismatic. They are just not Reformed. They are doing the best they can with what they know. We need not label them heretics or schismatic and belittle their work. They are Christians who differ in ecclesiology. They are doing more than we are. We are sinful in our inactivity.



Yes, it is. Once again it seems to boil down to pragmatism for you. As long as they "go" and have something approaching an evangelical gospel (sometimes in the loosest sense of the term if we are talking about Charismatics) it seems to be no big deal in your mind. Nevermind that our forebears faced persecution and even death for these doctrines that are "tertiary" to fluffy evangelicals' minds. I recognize that the lack of orthodox Christian fellowship places unique strains on the foreign missionary and that you don't believe any of the nonsense taught by Arminians and Charismatics, but you seem exasperated at those of us who insist that those differences should impact our support for missionaries and seem to be accusing us of violating our Lord's command to the apostles. The Great Commission isn't easy believism, however, and the teaching entailed isn't worth much if it doesn't have regard for the whole counsel of God and, accordingly, that which separates us from the mainstream American evangelicals. Ecclesiology goes to the very core of the Great Commission. The whole point of the missionary effort is to plant churches!


----------



## JTB.SDG (Nov 27, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Yes, it is. Once again it seems to boil down to pragmatism for you. As long as they "go" and have something approaching an evangelical gospel (sometimes in the loosest sense of the term if we are talking about Charismatics) it seems to be no big deal in your mind. Nevermind that our forebears faced persecution and even death for these doctrines that are "tertiary" to fluffy evangelicals' minds. I recognize that the lack of orthodox Christian fellowship places unique strains on the foreign missionary and that you don't believe any of the nonsense taught by Arminians and Charismatics, but you seem exasperated at those of us who insist that those differences should impact our support for missionaries and seem to be accusing us of violating our Lord's command to the apostles. The Great Commission isn't easy believism, however, and the teaching entailed isn't worth much if it doesn't have regard for the whole counsel of God and, accordingly, that which separates us from the mainstream American evangelicals. Ecclesiology goes to the very core of the Great Commission. The whole point of the missionary effort is to plant churches!



Chris, maybe this is getting a bit side-tracked from the post. The heart of the post had to do with what we thought about this young man being killed; not about comparing missions through the church versus parachurch. I understand what you're saying is related but I think we're drifting away from the original post.

I also don't think it's helpful to go into attack mode.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 27, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> Chris, maybe this is getting a bit side-tracked from the post. The heart of the post had to do with what we thought about this young man being killed; not about comparing missions through the church versus parachurch. I understand what you're saying is related but I think we're drifting away from the original post.
> 
> I also don't think it's helpful to go into attack mode.



With respect, I'm responding to dismissive comments about "TRs" and those with ecclesiastical scruples Perg has made throughout the thread (and a "blah blah" directed to me). I will gladly bow out, but I don't believe that I've side-tracked things seeing as a good portion of the thread and Perg's, the OP, comments have directly related to thoughts about the young man respecting his ecclesiastical standing and actions from a confessional standpoint. My intent is certainly not to attack anyone. I did carefully consider and rewrite them until I felt that they answered appropriately the spirit of the prior remarks, but perhaps they were overly sharp even so. They were meant to be firm but certainly not unloving toward a brother despite our disagreement.

I can understand Perg's frustration, from his perspective, over what seems to him like petty squabbling leading people to not support missionary efforts as he believes they ought. I hope he can also understand the frustration others feel when they, who believe that they are standing for God-honoring principles and the purity of Christ's church, and in the footsteps of those whose namesake and confessions form the basis for this board, are implied to be unconcerned with the advance of the gospel and our Lord's commission. We are treated thusly so frequently in our interactions with broader evangelicalism and the "truly missionals"; it's somewhat discouraging to find the same here.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Edifying 2


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 28, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> With respect, I'm responding to dismissive comments about "TRs" and those with ecclesiastical scruples Perg has made throughout the thread (and a "blah blah" directed to me). I will gladly bow out, but I don't believe that I've side-tracked things seeing as a good portion of the thread and Perg's, the OP, comments have directly related to thoughts about the young man respecting his ecclesiastical standing and actions from a confessional standpoint. My intent is certainly not to attack anyone. I did carefully consider and rewrite them until I felt that they answered appropriately the spirit of the prior remarks, but perhaps they were overly sharp even so. They were meant to be firm but certainly not unloving toward a brother despite our disagreement.
> 
> I can understand Perg's frustration, from his perspective, over what seems to him like petty squabbling leading people to not support missionary efforts as he believes they ought. I hope he can also understand the frustration others feel when they, who believe that they are standing for God-honoring principles and the purity of Christ's church, and in the footsteps of those whose namesake and confessions form the basis for this board, are implied to be unconcerned with the advance of the gospel and our Lord's commission. We are treated thusly so frequently in our interactions with broader evangelicalism and the "truly missionals"; it's somewhat discouraging to find the same here.



My apologies to you Chris,

I would ask you to please stay in the discussion. Sorry about the blah blah. I was trying to make a point, but I should have worded it better. I meant it to be banter and not rhetorical, but I was not mean-spirited when I typed it (though you could not have known that). Sorry, if it was rude. I was just trying to win the argument at any cost and to destroy my theological opponent, you see, so it was justified!  Just kidding...sorry, please stay in the discussion. I'll tone down my rhetoric. 

I do think there is validity to my critique regarding over-scrupulous TRs dividing over EP and headcoverings when there's folks out there that don't simply know about the name of Jesus in the world. 

It seems there are two extremes - (1) The Loosey Goosey "just give me Jesus and not doctrine" types who are often very commendable in their actions and bold, and yet spread much error, and the (2) staid and strict Reformed who critique every effort from their armchair and yet haven't shared the Gospel in years. 

Both are caricatures...but there is truth to most every stereotype. 

The Loosey Gooseys react to the Reformed in ways like I did above probably, and the Reformed push back and remind us that, yes, doctrine does matter. I'd love to see zeal and action coupled to strong doctrine. What are the boundaries and what doctrines are flexible or negotiable, well, that is a hard discussion...


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 28, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> Chris, maybe this is getting a bit side-tracked from the post. The heart of the post had to do with what we thought about this young man being killed; not about comparing missions through the church versus parachurch. I understand what you're saying is related but I think we're drifting away from the original post.
> 
> I also don't think it's helpful to go into attack mode.


I attacked Chris first, so it was probably my fault if he got off-topic. Sorry to you all. Let's keep the discussion going.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 28, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Yes, it is. Once again it seems to boil down to pragmatism for you. As long as they "go" and have something approaching an evangelical gospel (sometimes in the loosest sense of the term if we are talking about Charismatics) it seems to be no big deal in your mind. Nevermind that our forebears faced persecution and even death for these doctrines that are "tertiary" to fluffy evangelicals' minds. I recognize that the lack of orthodox Christian fellowship places unique strains on the foreign missionary and that you don't believe any of the nonsense taught by Arminians and Charismatics, but you seem exasperated at those of us who insist that those differences should impact our support for missionaries and seem to be accusing us of violating our Lord's command to the apostles. The Great Commission isn't easy believism, however, and the teaching entailed isn't worth much if it doesn't have regard for the whole counsel of God and, accordingly, that which separates us from the mainstream American evangelicals. Ecclesiology goes to the very core of the Great Commission. The whole point of the missionary effort is to plant churches!



Yes, those are great points. I essentially agree.

Tonight or tomorrow I'll respond to the charges of "pragmatism" - when is it and when isn't it permissible on the mission field? 

Is it "pragmatism" or is it just love for the greater body of Christ to help an ailing pastor even if he is Charismatic. Or in an area where women preachers are allowed to preach can I preach at her request to her church? Am I okay to take the invite or must I only pick the texts from the Apostle Paul reminding the church they ought not to have a woman pastor? Is it pragmatic to work within faulty churches for their improvement from the inside out? Or is it gentle love and patient wisdom? These are every day issues missionaries have to face.


Is it a compromise to rejoice over the faulty gospel efforts of imperfect servants? If it is broadly evangelical but flawed, can I still cheer them on? Or must I bemoan the imperfections?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 28, 2018)

Perhaps I hold a kind of middle position between Chris and Perg.

My conviction is that missionaries should be ministers of the gospel commisioned by presbyteries. While there is call for medics and other laborers to go and work alongside them, I don't hold to an "every member ministry" ecclesiology.

At the same time, I know that God sometimes uses imperfect means to accomplish his purposes. God has done a lot of good through diocesan bishops, lay preachers, charsmatics, etc.

I wouldn't financially support someone like the young man who was killed, but I can pray for them. It's my prayer that God would use even means such as this to establish his Church, _and _that he would lead her into all truth.

For what it's worth (since Psalm singing and headcovering were brought up), I know of two confessionally Reformed churches in and around the Bay of Bengal who are very zealous for missions. It's my prayer that the Lord would use those churches on North Sentinel Island and throughout Southern/Southeast Asia to plant congregations, presbyeries, and synods.

I admire the zeal of this young man, and I'm not going to criticize someone with such great faith, however confused he may be.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 28, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Is it a compromise to rejoice over the faulty gospel efforts of imperfect servants? If it is broadly evangelical but flawed, can I still cheer them on? Or must I bemoan the imperfections?



These are relevant and pertinent questions, I agree. They merit serious discussion.

The most serious churchmen have always been able to encourage without compromise. Think of Calvin and his counsel to Cecil, Elizabeth I's foreign minister. Calvin was no fan of episcopacy but worked still to reform the church with those whose commitments might have been less than what he thought they should be.

Here's the point: encouragement, and even cooperation where possible, should not simply be uncritical. We can both properly criticize and also properly encourage. If not, I need to resign as a church historian, because there is only one in history, and it's not a Puritan (!), who was beyond criticism!

I do believe that there's a point in "your action (albeit flawed) on behalf of the kingdom is better than my inaction." The solution, I think, is both to encourage and correct action that is misguided in some way and to seek to act properly.

The Sentinelese tragedy can serve as a wake-up call, not only to right zeal in reaching the unreached, but in how best to do so, especially as we engage in serious analysis of what was right and what was wrong about the young man's efforts.

In other words, his sacrifice was not in vain but was all part of our great God's plans in terms of worldwide gospel outreach. Our misapprehensions do not shorten His arm that He cannot save. Let us do all that we can to make the most of the examples given to us, even when they are quite imperfect (as are we!).

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Edifying 3


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 28, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Perhaps I hold a kind of middle position between Chris and Perg.
> 
> My conviction is that missionaries should be ministers of the gospel commisioned by presbyteries. While there is call for medics and other laborers to go and work alongside them, I don't hold to an "every member ministry" ecclesiology.
> 
> ...



I believe that we are actually quite close in position. I too, continue to pray for the efforts of missionaries of all stripes even as I pray for continued reformation of the church, at home and abroad. I try to approach these things like Paul in Philippians 1. I, of course, do not believe that these missionaries are preaching out of envy or strife or anything but a desire to see the gospel advance, but we can recognize and note their errors (which are not minor, I believe) even while praising God that the gospel is preached and for the souls converted as a result. Their errors prevent me from directly partnering in their ministry, however.

The pressure of modern evangelicalism to allow a concern for evangelism to trump almost all other considerations is a dangerous tendency. Years ago I began studies at Moody with the intent of missionary work and felt it keenly there. I eventually found that my motivation was more a desire for adventure and glory (as missionaries were treated as superheroes in my then evangelical circles) rather than a true call to the ministry and I changed course, but Moody's "Well, I like my way of doing it better than your way of not doing it!" quote was a mantra there. I believe that it's a cop-out and an unhealthy way of ignoring criticism or rebukes that may well be legitimate. Pragmatism in ministry may have it's place in certain limited and circumstantial cases, but it has also, writ large, been the death knell of confessionalism and has contributed to almost every church split in Presbyterian history.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 28, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, those are great points. I essentially agree.
> 
> Tonight or tomorrow I'll respond to the charges of "pragmatism" - when is it and when isn't it permissible on the mission field?
> 
> ...



Thanks Perg, I expect that we may have some similar and some different answers in these situations. With respect to your last two, I think the answer to both is yes. To ignore the public errors and sins of ministers in the public spotlight is dangerous. I don't believe that the Bible allows us different rules or lesser standards for teaching elders/ministers abroad versus those at home. They share the same office with the same qualifications. We don't refrain from recognizing and rebuking as necessary the public errors and sins of Arminian ministers or even those in our own denominations when they are in our backyards--even while we lament them. I would hope that we can also cheer their virtues alongside.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 28, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Perhaps I hold a kind of middle position between Chris and Perg.
> 
> My conviction is that missionaries should be ministers of the gospel commisioned by presbyteries. While there is call for medics and other laborers to go and work alongside them, I don't hold to an "every member ministry" ecclesiology.
> 
> ...


That would be pretty cool if the North Sentinelese became fully confessional EP and headcovering Presbyterians! I could support that mission!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 28, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Thanks Perg, I expect that we may have some similar and some different answers in these situations. With respect to your last two, I think the answer to both is yes. To ignore the public errors and sins of ministers in the public spotlight is dangerous. I don't believe that the Bible allows us different rules or lesser standards for teaching elders/ministers abroad versus those at home. They share the same office with the same qualifications. We don't refrain from recognizing and rebuking as necessary the public errors and sins of Arminian ministers or even those in our own denominations when they are in our backyards--even while we lament them. I would hope that we can also cheer their virtues alongside.


Yes, I think we are probably agreed on 99% of what we are discussing. Thanks for your interactions.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 28, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I think we are probably agreed on 99% of what we are discussing. Thanks for your interactions.



Likewise  You and your family continue to be in our prayers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 29, 2018)

Mission agency clears away some false assumptions about John Chau’s missionary work:

"...there is more to the story that we haven’t heard yet."

See:
http://www.dennyburk.com/mission-ag...ons-about-john-chaus-mission-to-remote-tribe/

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Jack K (Nov 30, 2018)

This story claims peaceful contact was made almost thirty years ago... by sending a woman rather than a man. But then the Indian government put a stop to it.

I recognize the reluctance to put a woman in harm's way, and we would eventually want a man to come to preach the gospel, but there could be some wisdom in letting a woman make initial contact. In every culture I know, a woman feels less threatening than a man. Many missionary teams benefit greatly from having women on the team. There's also the success Elisabeth Elliot and Rachel Saint had with the Auca people, where their husbands were killed.

Perhaps this is something to think about. We can both admire the missionary who tried to reach the Sentinelese and learn from happened.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 1, 2018)

Jack K said:


> This story claims peaceful contact was made almost thirty years ago... by sending a woman rather than a man. But then the Indian government put a stop to it.
> 
> I recognize the reluctance to put a woman in harm's way, and we would eventually want a man to come to preach the gospel, but there could be some wisdom in letting a woman make initial contact. In every culture I know, a woman feels less threatening than a man. Many missionary teams benefit greatly from having women on the team. There's also the success Elisabeth Elliot and Rachel Saint had with the Auca people, where their husbands were killed.
> 
> Perhaps this is something to think about. We can both admire the missionary who tried to reach the Sentinelese and learn from happened.


Great post. Thanks for the info and the thoughts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

