# Poll: Sending missionaries and equipping the saints is a local church responsibility



## Pergamum (Jun 16, 2009)

Do you agree or disagree with this statement:

*The New Testament plan of sending missionaries and equipping saints for the ministry is through the local church*

NOTE 1: The context of the statement seemed to mean that either the local church was to be the primary means or maybe even the exclusive means of sending missionaries and equipping the saints.

NOTE 2: The one who made this statement did not define what he meant by the preposition "through" as in "through the local church." By the way he said it, it seemed like he meant to mean that secondary means such as mission boards were not biblical.


----------



## chbrooking (Jun 16, 2009)

Note 3: I'm not sure what to make of "local". Does that mean to the exclusion or neglect of the regional or national church? I can't vote because the statement is too ambiguous. It's not that I don't have an opinion. I just can't respond to the statement without clarification.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 16, 2009)

This was a baptist who made this statement. He believes in the autonomy and independancy of the local church. So "local church" would mean, e.g., "First Baptist of Suburbanville, USA."



NOTE 3: This man was educated at a Bible school (not connected) with his local church.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Jun 16, 2009)

Being Presbyterian rather than Baptist, my answer will not fit neatly. 

I do think it is a local church's responsibility to raise up willing missionaries and to support them financially. I also think the larger church should make training and funding available that may not be possible strictly at the local level. 

For example, our small congregation here in Louisville may be able to raise up a willing missionary, but we don't have the money to fully fund him or the means to provide all the necessary training. We do, however, have a national agency within our denomination that can supply those needs. 

I would imagine that Baptists have some sort of cooperative agency that functions in a similar way.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jun 16, 2009)

While I don't believe that it is wrong to go to the mission field under a mission organization, I believe that the initial call should come from within the congregation (following the examples given in Acts). In other words, before going to the field, the elders and members of the church should be able to easily recognize the gifts necessary for someone to be a missionary and that call should be affirmed by the leadership. The church should also be willing to back that missionary financially. 

How a missionary actually gets to field is another matter. In some cases, it is easier to get into a country by working or joining a group that is already working in the country.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jun 16, 2009)

Your Baptist friend has, I think, a good point which I am sympathetic to. However, it may well be that he is also being anachronistic. The NT did not know such things as denominations, either. And like it or not, he is a member of one, and that also affects his approach to the subject of missions. So the answer is not as neat as one might like.

Having said that, I would also say that individual congregations should be about the business of supporting missionaries on the local level. I could see problems emerging from mission boards or agencies that operate autonomously apart from the church (I will plead ignorance here and have no idea is this is pervasive or even a problem at all). As Anna mentioned above, our denomination has a missions board, but that board cannot function independent of General Synod. In fact, the way our boards are structured, they are supposed to function as "servants" of the church. An agency of this sort is able to join the churches of the denomination together so that they are able to do what one or two might not be able to do. Of course, it is also possible to do this w/o such a structure in place.

If you friend's fear is that a missions board might disassociate a missionary from a local church such that the people "forget" about missions, etc. (since they have no direct connection), then I would be in agreement with him. Our own small church manages to send money to both the board (World Witness) and an individual missionary in Turkey. We will hopefully have another one of our missionaries (in Mexico) come and speak next month (he was supposed to come last Lord's Day, but there was an emergency situation that prevented it) and we can redirect some of our support his way as well.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jun 16, 2009)

I believe the local church should be the educator and sender. However, I'm not opposed to cooperation between locals (of like doctrine) sharing members who are gifted and the like. Mission boards/organizations are good, but a missionary should be accountable to people who know him well. 

I am a Baptist, but I think that too many churches have failed by becoming an island. If I were to start a denomination, the government would be somewhere between Independent Baptist and Presbyterian Synod. Let the stoning begin


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 16, 2009)

Scottish Lass said:


> Being Presbyterian rather than Baptist, my answer will not fit neatly.
> 
> I do think it is a local church's responsibility to raise up willing missionaries and to support them financially. I also think the larger church should make training and funding available that may not be possible strictly at the local level.
> 
> ...



That national agency or any other sort of cooperative program means that your church would not then send out missionaries directly from your home church (i.e. direct to the field), but that you would use intermediaries such as mission agencies or boards.

-----Added 6/16/2009 at 06:32:30 EST-----



JBaldwin said:


> While I don't believe that it is wrong to go to the mission field under a mission organization, I believe that the initial call should come from within the congregation (following the examples given in Acts). In other words, before going to the field, the elders and members of the church should be able to easily recognize the gifts necessary for someone to be a missionary and that call should be affirmed by the leadership. The church should also be willing to back that missionary financially.
> 
> How a missionary actually gets to field is another matter. In some cases, it is easier to get into a country by working or joining a group that is already working in the country.



Agreed. But what would you say to those that mean by the statement, "The New Testament plan of sending missionaries and equipping saints for the ministry is through the local church." that the local church MUST be the *only *one involved. Which is what this man seems to have meant.

I agree the local churches must confirm the call. But what if someone said that mission boards, mission agencies, etc, were not biblical because this was not "through" the local church (meaning only through the local church and not utilizing other means as well as the local church partners with others to send their missionary to the field)?

-----Added 6/16/2009 at 06:35:55 EST-----



Marrow Man said:


> Your Baptist friend has, I think, a good point which I am sympathetic to. However, it may well be that he is also being anachronistic. The NT did not know such things as denominations, either. And like it or not, he is a member of one, and that also affects his approach to the subject of missions. So the answer is not as neat as one might like.
> 
> Having said that, I would also say that individual congregations should be about the business of supporting missionaries on the local level. I could see problems emerging from mission boards or agencies that operate autonomously apart from the church (I will plead ignorance here and have no idea is this is pervasive or even a problem at all). As Anna mentioned above, our denomination has a missions board, but that board cannot function independent of General Synod. In fact, the way our boards are structured, they are supposed to function as "servants" of the church. An agency of this sort is able to join the churches of the denomination together so that they are able to do what one or two might not be able to do. Of course, it is also possible to do this w/o such a structure in place.
> 
> If you friend's fear is that a missions board might disassociate a missionary from a local church such that the people "forget" about missions, etc. (since they have no direct connection), then I would be in agreement with him. Our own small church manages to send money to both the board (World Witness) and an individual missionary in Turkey. We will hopefully have another one of our missionaries (in Mexico) come and speak next month (he was supposed to come last Lord's Day, but there was an emergency situation that prevented it) and we can redirect some of our support his way as well.



I even agree with the sentiments of the speaker somewhat, but I think this speaker overspeaks by being overly rigid as to the means by which a missionary serves on the field.

I agree that a mission agency must not dissociate missionaries from the churches that send them. Some of the people that disagree with me, however, state that even to go through an agency or to send any money through an agency is to, in effect, dissociate a missionary from his local church.

-----Added 6/16/2009 at 06:43:47 EST-----

*NOTE:*

Maybe I should have made my poll choices more accurately fit the situation. 

Maybe I should have asked, if you agree with this statement,

*"The New Testament plan of sending missionaries and equipping saints for the ministry is through the local church alone without any use of outside means or agencies."*


----------



## KMK (Jun 16, 2009)

Is it even possible to send missionaries to a foreign country without 'intermediaries' of some sort? How would the proper visas and credentials be obtained? How would they get there? Who would familiarize them with the territory? Who would teach them the language? Who would administer the proper inoculations? It boggles the mind to think about how many people are involved with supporting missionaries, Christian or otherwise.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 16, 2009)

KMK said:


> Is it even possible to send missionaries to a foreign country without 'intermediaries' of some sort? How would the proper visas and credentials be obtained? How would they get there? Who would familiarize them with the territory? Who would teach them the language? Who would administer the proper inoculations? It boggles the mind to think about how many people are involved with supporting missionaries, Christian or otherwise.



I know more than a few that minister in Mexico.


----------



## Edward (Jun 16, 2009)

Since the 'Yes' is upper and lower case, and the 'NO' is a shouting all upper case, and I don't like some of the possible implications of that (although it could be a simple typo), I'll take a pass for now.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 16, 2009)

i didn't know my typos would sway the vote.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 16, 2009)

I said, NO.

The reason is that the "Proposition Statement" lists two tasks of the local church, sending missionaries and equipping saints. In regards to the latter task, well, obviously the answer is YES the local church is the primary means of fulfilling that task. Concerning the former task, the task of sending missionaries, quite frankly I don't think the NT provides us with a "plan" in the sense of a blueprint, at least not one that is followed by the modern missions movement.


----------



## KMK (Jun 16, 2009)

Edward said:


> Since the 'Yes' is upper and lower case, and the 'NO' is a shouting all upper case, and I don't like some of the possible implications of that (although it could be a simple typo), I'll take a pass for now.





Pergamum said:


> i didn't know my typos would sway the vote.



I fixed the typo. You may now vote with a clear conscience.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 16, 2009)

p.s. the man who said this was trained at a bible college. I found his assertions quite inconsistent because he would have me goforth direct from my home church with no existing organization to help process my visa, but did not trust his even theological education to his local church.


----------



## tellville (Jun 17, 2009)

I think the local church needs to be involved with the sending. I shouldn't just one day tell my church "see ya" and join any ol' mission organization. The local church should be fully involved in my becoming and sustainment as a missionary (though it does not I think need to be the sole sustainment). Now if my local church believes that a certain mission organization is the best way to prepare me and sustain me for the mission field then so be it. 

So to sum it up: The local church should be doing the sending but this doesn't mean to the exclusion of the rest of God's people. The church is a body and the local church is but one part of that body. Mission organizations are awesome resources for the local church to make use of. The question then becomes which are the good mission organizations.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 17, 2009)

tellville said:


> I think the local church needs to be involved with the sending. I shouldn't just one day tell my church "see ya" and join any ol' mission organization. The local church should be fully involved in my becoming and sustainment as a missionary (though it does not I think need to be the sole sustainment). Now if my local church believes that a certain mission organization is the best way to prepare me and sustain me for the mission field then so be it.
> 
> So to sum it up: The local church should be doing the sending but this doesn't mean to the exclusion of the rest of God's people. The church is a body and the local church is but one part of that body. Mission organizations are awesome resources for the local church to make use of. The question then becomes which are the good mission organizations.



Yes, I agree 100%. 

But sometimes when someone wants to assert the importance of the local church, a thing to which I agree, they do so by cutting off the resources that a local church may utilize, like these missions organizations.

In their zeal to secure the place of the local church they deny the role that helps such as organizations may play.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jun 17, 2009)

While some might look at the Jerusalem council as a local church, I do not think that is accurate. The account of Acts 15 includes a sending of "missionaries" for the whole church. While it is possible for a single church to send someone to perform a task, it is more appropriate to have a higher court of the church responsible for the sending of missionaries. The local church does not have apostles to license someone to preach. From the appointment of elders in the churches, it is a good and necessary consequence that there be courts of the church. Those courts have historically (even to acts 15) been arranged by hierarchy (the council being a higher court than the local churches to which they sent the letter). The WCF 31 states the need for synods and councils. I would argue these courts of the church rightfully send missionaries.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 17, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> While some might look at the Jerusalem council as a local church, I do not think that is accurate. The account of Acts 15 includes a sending of "missionaries" for the whole church. While it is possible for a single church to send someone to perform a task, it is more appropriate to have a higher court of the church responsible for the sending of missionaries. The local church does not have apostles to license someone to preach. From the appointment of elders in the churches, it is a good and necessary consequence that there be courts of the church. Those courts have historically (even to acts 15) been arranged by hierarchy (the council being a higher court than the local churches to which they sent the letter). The WCF 31 states the need for synods and councils. I would argue these courts of the church rightfully send missionaries.



Of course I cannot agree to that being a baptist, there being no such hierarchy in the early church, only meetings where issues were mulled over and advice given and the whole church consented. Then the letter was sent around, not trying to enforce an ecclesiastical hierarchy but to persuade other churches.

For evangelicals, mission orgs are not a higher authority but function (or should) as servants to the local church to help the local church send its missionaires.


----------



## tellville (Jun 17, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> > I think the local church needs to be involved with the sending. I shouldn't just one day tell my church "see ya" and join any ol' mission organization. The local church should be fully involved in my becoming and sustainment as a missionary (though it does not I think need to be the sole sustainment). Now if my local church believes that a certain mission organization is the best way to prepare me and sustain me for the mission field then so be it.
> ...



You nailed it. 



Pergamum said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> > While some might look at the Jerusalem council as a local church, I do not think that is accurate. The account of Acts 15 includes a sending of "missionaries" for the whole church. While it is possible for a single church to send someone to perform a task, it is more appropriate to have a higher court of the church responsible for the sending of missionaries. The local church does not have apostles to license someone to preach. From the appointment of elders in the churches, it is a good and necessary consequence that there be courts of the church. Those courts have historically (even to acts 15) been arranged by hierarchy (the council being a higher court than the local churches to which they sent the letter). The WCF 31 states the need for synods and councils. I would argue these courts of the church rightfully send missionaries.
> ...



Nailed it again


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jun 17, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> > While some might look at the Jerusalem council as a local church, I do not think that is accurate. The account of Acts 15 includes a sending of "missionaries" for the whole church. While it is possible for a single church to send someone to perform a task, it is more appropriate to have a higher court of the church responsible for the sending of missionaries. The local church does not have apostles to license someone to preach. From the appointment of elders in the churches, it is a good and necessary consequence that there be courts of the church. Those courts have historically (even to acts 15) been arranged by hierarchy (the council being a higher court than the local churches to which they sent the letter). The WCF 31 states the need for synods and councils. I would argue these courts of the church rightfully send missionaries.
> ...



Ah, I didn't realize your affiliation (it isn't in your signature). We will disagree on that ... but in love.

-----Added 6/17/2009 at 02:25:18 EST-----

tellville,

I would of course state that the idea of congregationalism is flawed, but that would be  and besides, as I told Pergie, I didn't know his affiliation. Pointless to argue it ... better minds than ours have debated it for centuries and still disagree. I would say just the opposite of what you express, and there would be no point in going further. BTW, thanks for your signature stating your alignment.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 17, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Brian Withnell said:
> ...



Your position is very logical and if I saw Acts 15 as a synod or first general assembly then my view on missions might be a lot simpler. 

Connectionalism as a congregationalist is much harder to maintain. Especially among calvy baptists who are often influenced by Landmarkist thought. Landmarkism doesn't infect Presbyterians as much I would guess.


----------

