# David Platt's Radical



## Notthemama1984

I have just about finished the book. In the book, Platt paints a very sad picture about evangelism in American churches to the point of saying some churches see foreign missions as punishment. 

Is it really this bad? I understand the "well I am not called" response, but I have never heard of missions as punishment.


----------



## Pergamum

I have had people give me money for missions and remark, "I am giving you this SO THAT I DON'T HAVE TO GO!" They give well and I am thankful, but a little disgusted at their poor articulation of the reasoning. I would much rather they say, "I cannot go, but want to be involved through giving." I almost wonder whether I should or shouldn't accept money given this way.


I have also now had about 4 or 5 people ask about going on short term trips for the purpose of "doing their time" for 2-3 weeks so that they can say that they did missions (and presumably then get on with their lives). Others merely want to explore missions with no long-term plans towards service or state that they want to get involved a few summers "while they have time".....but their level of seriousness at long-term engagement is low and they don't even want to go to the same place twice in order to nurture deeper relationships but want a smattering of summer experiences. I have ALWAYS refused these requests and always will.....wrong motivation it seems. 


In the Civil War, wealthy northern families paid the poor to take the place of their sons in the firing line so that they did not have to personally get involved. I think this same attitude permeates much of the Western church (and is the reason for the popularity of folks wanting to go strictly towards supporting poor Indian pastors sometimes....outsourcing the Great Commission). 

Also, currently about 1/3rd of the missionaries I know (many of them working in frontier and remote areas, places that all churches claim to be prioritizing) have chronic issues of being under-supported while their large churches back home "struggle" with the building fund. (two words I have come to hate...."building fund"),

I like Platt's Radical. It has received some negative reviews from a few reformed curmudgeons, but I think it is being used to shake people awake.


----------



## AThornquist

Thanks, Perg. Would it then be correct to say that evangelicalism doesn't see the _concept_ of foreign missions as punishment but rather individual evangelicals view long-term foreign missions as highly unattractive, to the point of viewing this type of labor as being like punishment _for them_?


----------



## Pergamum

Andrew:

I notice you used the words "evangelicalism" and "evangelicals." Is this because you assume that I am an evangelical or that I primarily run in evangelical circles?

Let me divert you with a 30-second rant (ha ha, my apologies):


Most of these folks I mentioned above would call themselves "reformed" or at least Reformed Baptist. 

Those most explicitly fond of the Reformed Baptist moniker have been the least motivated I have personally seen in sending out their own into missions.

therefore, I can't blame it on "evangelicalism" because some of the more evangelical churches far outstrip us in zeal while many of the explicitly reformed baptist churches I've been to make darn sure to check out my doctrines and make sure I ain't one of those evangelicals, but do little in the way
of sending out their own young people. 

(I have helped recruit and raise a good number of missionaries towards the field now in a short time and only two that I know of come from explicitly Reformed Baptist Churches...and those two are coming this summer -you might know them  ).

Yes, I think most view it as unattractive, but hopefully only because it is not THEIR calling.


So I think this might be a Western problem and not merely an evangelicalism problem.

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

Revise: The "I want to go on short term mission trips to say that I did them" sort of mentality does occur much among more evangelical-leaning churches (i.e., the trend toward short term going), but they also tend, in general, to be more action-oriented and zealous (and with less qualification for service, rendering it easier to serve) than very strict Reformed Baptist Churches that I know who often express the fear that someone will "run, without being sent."


----------



## AThornquist

Pergamum said:


> Andrew:
> 
> I notice you used the words "evangelicalism" and "evangelicals." Is this because you assume that I am an evangelical or that I primarily run in evangelical circles?
> 
> Let me divert you with a 30-second rant (ha ha, my apologies):
> 
> 
> Most of these folks I mentioned above would call themselves "reformed" or at least Reformed Baptist.
> 
> Those most explicitly fond of the Reformed Baptist moniker have been the least motivated I have personally seen in sending out their own into missions.
> 
> therefore, I can't blame it on "evangelicalism" because some of the more evangelical churches far outstrip us in zeal while many of the explicitly reformed baptist churches I've been to make darn sure to check out my doctrines and make sure I ain't one of those evangelicals, but do little in the way
> of sending out their own young people.



I am probably unaware of the most accurate use of the term evangelical because I thought a Reformed Baptist was a type of evangelical. I am using the term in the way Allistair Begg used it on the radio this morning: an evangelical is someone who has been born again and trusts in Christ alone for the forgiveness of sins. So yes, I assumed you are an evangelical and run in evangelical circles.  The OP spoke of "American churches" and I equated that with evangelicalism in a vague and general way.
With regards to Reformed baptists and missions, I am well aware that other "brands" of Christians are more zealous for missions. That's something that was hammered on during my Sunday School class on Missions throughout last year, and the fact of Reformed baptist relative inactivity is very sad.



> (I have helped recruit and raise a good number of missionaries towards the field now in a short time and only two that I know of come from explicitly Reformed Baptist Churches...and those two are coming this summer -you might know them  ).



Hmmm I might have to guess. 



> Yes, I think most view it as unattractive, but hopefully only because it is not THEIR calling.
> 
> So I think this might be a Western problem and not merely an evangelicalism problem.



A Western problem. Good point.


----------



## CharlieJ

Pergamum said:


> I have also now had about 4 or 5 people ask about going on short term trips for the purpose of "doing their time" for 2-3 weeks so that they can say that they did missions (and presumably then get on with their lives). Others merely want to explore missions with no long-term plans towards service or state that they want to get involved a few summers "while they have time".....but their level of seriousness at long-term engagement is low and they don't even want to go to the same place twice in order to nurture deeper relationships but want a smattering of summer experiences. I have ALWAYS refused these requests and always will.....wrong motivation it seems.



I went on a lot of summer mission trips as a teenager. I'm sure that most of our motivations were mixed, and only a few of us were considering future ministry. I also recognize now what a headache we were for the hosting churches. Yet, I'm so glad that I had the opportunity to go. The experience changed me, and it changed my friends. Away from our indulgent, insulated lives for a few weeks, we saw what life was like for the less fortunate in the world. We were nurtured by the faith of sacrificial pastors and joyful, foreign Christians. Long after we came home, we were more inclined to see the people around us not just as bodies, but as souls with deep spiritual needs. We were a little less selfish. 

So, if it becomes appropriate in your context, I hope you'll consider hosting some "no-strings" short-term mission teams. They probably won't be much help to you, but I think you could be of great service to them.


----------



## Pergamum

AThornquist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew:
> 
> I notice you used the words "evangelicalism" and "evangelicals." Is this because you assume that I am an evangelical or that I primarily run in evangelical circles?
> 
> Let me divert you with a 30-second rant (ha ha, my apologies):
> 
> 
> Most of these folks I mentioned above would call themselves "reformed" or at least Reformed Baptist.
> 
> Those most explicitly fond of the Reformed Baptist moniker have been the least motivated I have personally seen in sending out their own into missions.
> 
> therefore, I can't blame it on "evangelicalism" because some of the more evangelical churches far outstrip us in zeal while many of the explicitly reformed baptist churches I've been to make darn sure to check out my doctrines and make sure I ain't one of those evangelicals, but do little in the way
> of sending out their own young people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am probably unaware of the most accurate use of the term evangelical because I thought a Reformed Baptist was a type of evangelical. I am using the term in the way Allistair Begg used it on the radio this morning: an evangelical is someone who has been born again and trusts in Christ alone for the forgiveness of sins. So yes, I assumed you are an evangelical and run in evangelical circles.  The OP spoke of "American churches" and I equated that with evangelicalism in a vague and general way.
> With regards to Reformed baptists and missions, I am well aware that other "brands" of Christians are more zealous for missions. That's something that was hammered on during my Sunday School class on Missions throughout last year, and the fact of Reformed baptist relative inactivity is very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I have helped recruit and raise a good number of missionaries towards the field now in a short time and only two that I know of come from explicitly Reformed Baptist Churches...and those two are coming this summer -you might know them  ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm I might have to guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I think most view it as unattractive, but hopefully only because it is not THEIR calling.
> 
> So I think this might be a Western problem and not merely an evangelicalism problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Western problem. Good point.
Click to expand...

 
Interesting. 



> I am well aware that other "brands" of Christians are more zealous for missions. That's something that was hammered on during my Sunday School class on Missions throughout last year


----------



## AThornquist

Is that good, bad, or something else?


----------



## Pergamum

Not sure, I would love to hear what you heard in Sunday School and what sort of church this was from and what remedies were suggested.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> Those most explicitly fond of the Reformed Baptist moniker have been the least motivated I have personally seen in sending out their own into missions



I find this oddly out of sink with my own experience. My own experience has shown Reformed Baptists to be more engaged than most Southern Baptist Churches I've worked with. So, my hope is that this apathy that you've encountered is unique to your experience and not normative of Reformed Baptists in general.


----------



## Damon Rambo

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those most explicitly fond of the Reformed Baptist moniker have been the least motivated I have personally seen in sending out their own into missions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find this oddly out of sink with my own experience. My own experience has shown Reformed Baptists to be more engaged than most Southern Baptist Churches I've worked with. So, my hope is that this apathy that you've encountered is unique to your experience and not normative of Reformed Baptists in general.
Click to expand...

 
My own experience has been different as well. The "Reformed" baptist churches that I know are FAR more missional than the non-Reformed, both abroad, and at home. My experience with most non-reformed SBC churches is that when they ARE involved in "missions" it is not really mission work, since it diminishes or eliminates the spreading of the Gospel. They say things like "We have to build a relationship for the next few years with them, before we lay our religion on them," or even worse, "feeding these people IS the Gospel..." BLAH!!!!

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------

Also, I would like to note that evangelism (I consider evangelism and missions synonymous terms) circles are the same way. A poll done on the "Way of the Master" website recently, revealed about 8 out of every 10 identified themselves as "Reformed".


----------



## AThornquist

Pergamum said:


> Not sure, I would love to hear what you heard in Sunday School and what sort of church this was from and what remedies were suggested.


 
The missions class was one of the several Sunday School options here at Heritage, so it was thoroughly Reformed baptist. It's focus was on the theology of missions in Scripture, the life of missionaries like William Carey, the involvement of our church in India, Africa, Latin America, Romania, etc. to teach about those cultures, the religious climate, how we can get further involved, and other things like that. We didn't spend any significant amount of time in one sitting to talk about how active Reformed baptists are in fulfilling the Great Commission.

We did have sprinklings of short discussions throughout the year during that class and also outside of class about how the very conservative Reformed baptist movement is more like the Reformed baptist *non-*movement because of how little is being done by us to proclaim the Gospel to all nations. Among those that are more progressive, this observation is less prevalent. But please don't construe this as unduly critical; there is much to thank God for in terms of what good has been done among us and we certainly don't forget that, but that isn't the point of this post. The pastors here are strong defenders of the LBCF and have been faithful Reformed baptists for a long time, especially Ted Christman who is one of a handful of remaining pastors from the very inception of the RB movement in the States. What is seen though is that Reformed baptists are often known for their distinctives and not their love for Christ and the Gospel, and outreach is often limited to the point where church growth is primarily by converted children or people moving _to_ the church instead of being converted by ministries _of_ the church. There is a lot of missional talk among Reformed baptists, but talk isn't enough. Again, there are some pretty big differences between conservative RB's and more progressive RB's, who by some definitions are merely Calvinistic baptists.

The suggested remedies are off the top of my head and from what I remember clearly from my pastors:
1) We need to *be* passionate for the Gospel and for the lost. Liking theology saves nobody.
2) We need to *be* less critical of other Christians and major on the majors, being willing to come alongside pastors who teach different minors so that we can strive together to come to the truth.
3) We need to *be* most known for our love, not our distinctives.
4) We need to *go* and plant seeds domestically and abroad, that the Lord may give the water to grow them.


Does that answer your question?


----------



## Pergamum

CharlieJ said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have also now had about 4 or 5 people ask about going on short term trips for the purpose of "doing their time" for 2-3 weeks so that they can say that they did missions (and presumably then get on with their lives). Others merely want to explore missions with no long-term plans towards service or state that they want to get involved a few summers "while they have time".....but their level of seriousness at long-term engagement is low and they don't even want to go to the same place twice in order to nurture deeper relationships but want a smattering of summer experiences. I have ALWAYS refused these requests and always will.....wrong motivation it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went on a lot of summer mission trips as a teenager. I'm sure that most of our motivations were mixed, and only a few of us were considering future ministry. I also recognize now what a headache we were for the hosting churches. Yet, I'm so glad that I had the opportunity to go. The experience changed me, and it changed my friends. Away from our indulgent, insulated lives for a few weeks, we saw what life was like for the less fortunate in the world. We were nurtured by the faith of sacrificial pastors and joyful, foreign Christians. Long after we came home, we were more inclined to see the people around us not just as bodies, but as souls with deep spiritual needs. We were a little less selfish.
> 
> So, if it becomes appropriate in your context, I hope you'll consider hosting some "no-strings" short-term mission teams. They probably won't be much help to you, but I think you could be of great service to them.
Click to expand...

 
I am glad you were blessed by your trip. For you, brother, I would do as you requested.

Note that with the rise in short term missions, the amont or percentage of money given to missions has not increased. If short-term missions blessed all and made an impact even to those not wanting to go long-term, then we should see some sort of correlative rise in giving linked with a rise in the frequency of these short-term trips and the rising number of people exposed to missions on the field via those venues. But, this has not happened. I can fidn the stats if needed.

---------- Post added at 05:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------




C. M. Sheffield said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those most explicitly fond of the Reformed Baptist moniker have been the least motivated I have personally seen in sending out their own into missions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find this oddly out of sink with my own experience. My own experience has shown Reformed Baptists to be more engaged than most Southern Baptist Churches I've worked with. So, my hope is that this apathy that you've encountered is unique to your experience and not normative of Reformed Baptists in general.
Click to expand...


I am very glad that this has not been your experience. I have also seen some very un-engaged Southern Baptist churches.


----------



## Pergamum

Damon Rambo said:


> C. M. Sheffield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those most explicitly fond of the Reformed Baptist moniker have been the least motivated I have personally seen in sending out their own into missions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find this oddly out of sink with my own experience. My own experience has shown Reformed Baptists to be more engaged than most Southern Baptist Churches I've worked with. So, my hope is that this apathy that you've encountered is unique to your experience and not normative of Reformed Baptists in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My own experience has been different as well. The "Reformed" baptist churches that I know are FAR more missional than the non-Reformed, both abroad, and at home. My experience with most non-reformed SBC churches is that when they ARE involved in "missions" it is not really mission work, since it diminishes or eliminates the spreading of the Gospel. They say things like "We have to build a relationship for the next few years with them, before we lay our religion on them," or even worse, "feeding these people IS the Gospel..." BLAH!!!!
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------
> 
> Also, I would like to note that evangelism (I consider evangelism and missions synonymous terms) circles are the same way. A poll done on the "Way of the Master" website recently, revealed about 8 out of every 10 identified themselves as "Reformed".
Click to expand...

 
Damon;

I also am glad that your experience differs as well.

Yes, I am very glad for the Way of the Master. They are very practical and their methodology helps many people to better engage the lost.

About whether something is missions or not: Yes, I have seen many churches count community canned food drives as their main missions efforts. These things are good, but I agree with you that these things should not be mainly what one considers missions. Reformed churches do seem less likely to do that and they seem more likely to focus on preaching by ordained men and define this as missions. 

However, I do believe that missionaries are permitted to use many platforms, especially when trying to gain access to some resistant countries. In these cases I would count even food aid and community development as missions. I am sure you would agree. I do believe that long-term relationship building is a key component of missions, especially when direct evangelism is illegal.


Also, Damon, I note that you belong to the Southern Baptist Convention. This is a significant point since Southern Baptists are less ecclesiastically strict than many Reformed Baptists.

While many Southern Baptist churches can be shown to be bad examples in missions (since there are SOO many of them and they vary so much in doctrine), the Southern Baptists are doing great work in Central Asia particularly, led by firm believers in the sovereignty of God. They really are leading the pack when it comes to engaging mslms. 

I think baptist ecclesiology and their freer use of laymen and their willingness to cooperate with broader groups are keys to their success in many areas. I think much of this has to do with a less strict ecclesiology and less hoops for someone to jump through in order to serve. Southern Baptists (the good churches) seem to be able to mobilize people more easily. This seems to be an even bigger factor perhaps than how firmly they hold to the sovereignty of God.

Two large factors that influence a church's sending ability: [/U](1) beliefs about the available structures by which a missionary may be sent and (2) beliefs about who may be sent. 

Those who are more evangelical in ecclesiology (whether they are reformed in soteriology or not) are able to go through mission organizations with less resistance, or able to gain training from a number of para-church orgs. Some Reformed Baptists I know, in their zeal for the indepenancwe and autonomy of the local church, seem almost isolationist and frown on using any other strucutre beside their own local church to send people. And these also seem slow to send anyone aside from an elder-qualified man. 


A large proportion of all the missionaries I know on the field are calvinistic, particularly among the church-planters...but their ecclesiology is less rigid than some of the Reformed Baptists that I know. It seems like a firm belief in God's grace, coupled by a church who is willing to train and mentor their laymen and send them through a variety of structures, taking advantage of all that the larger body of Christ has to offer, are the best senders.




But sorry if this departs from the OP. Yes, it seems that many (even the Reformed that I know) treat missions service as something distasteful, whereas I cannot believe that God even saved me, let alone stuck me in a needy area where I can serve him despite my weaknesses. That is a precious gift, not a punishment and I thank God everyday (even with malaria) that i am here.

---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------




AThornquist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure, I would love to hear what you heard in Sunday School and what sort of church this was from and what remedies were suggested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The missions class was one of the several Sunday School options here at Heritage, so it was thoroughly Reformed baptist. It's focus was on the theology of missions in Scripture, the life of missionaries like William Carey, the involvement of our church in India, Africa, Latin America, Romania, etc. to teach about those cultures, the religious climate, how we can get further involved, and other things like that. We didn't spend any significant amount of time in one sitting to talk about how active Reformed baptists are in fulfilling the Great Commission.
> 
> We did have sprinklings of short discussions throughout the year during that class and also outside of class about how the very conservative Reformed baptist movement is more like the Reformed baptist *non-*movement because of how little is being done by us to proclaim the Gospel to all nations. Among those that are more progressive, this observation is less prevalent. But please don't construe this as unduly critical; there is much to thank God for in terms of what good has been done among us and we certainly don't forget that, but that isn't the point of this post. The pastors here are strong defenders of the LBCF and have been faithful Reformed baptists for a long time, especially Ted Christman who is one of a handful of remaining pastors from the very inception of the RB movement in the States. What is seen though is that Reformed baptists are often known for their distinctives and not their love for Christ and the Gospel, and outreach is often limited to the point where church growth is primarily by converted children or people moving _to_ the church instead of being converted by ministries _of_ the church. There is a lot of missional talk among Reformed baptists, but talk isn't enough. Again, there are some pretty big differences between conservative RB's and more progressive RB's, who by some definitions are merely Calvinistic baptists.
> 
> The suggested remedies are off the top of my head and from what I remember clearly from my pastors:
> 1) We need to *be* passionate for the Gospel and for the lost. Liking theology saves nobody.
> 2) We need to *be* less critical of other Christians and major on the majors, being willing to come alongside pastors who teach different minors so that we can strive together to come to the truth.
> 3) We need to *be* most known for our love, not our distinctives.
> 4) We need to *go* and plant seeds domestically and abroad, that the Lord may give the water to grow them.
> 
> 
> Does that answer your question?
Click to expand...

 
Yes, I have noticed the same things. I have never thought in terms of "Conversative RBs" and "Progressive RBs" but those seem to be pretty good categories. Is ecclesiological rigidity one of the main differences between the two?


----------



## Particular Baptist

I think that one of the things that Platt's book shows is that our missiology is intrisincally tied to ecclesiology. How we view the church in terms of local and global, and how one understands the makeup of the local church, all effect how a group of Christians approach missiology. Though some here have many problems Sovereign Grace Ministries' polity, I think this is one thing that they should be commended on. Their view of the local church, and the global church, affects how they understand the Great Commission and church planting, at home and abroad. Their understanding of ecclesiology has shaped their missiology and vice versa.


----------



## Pergamum

Particular Baptist said:


> I think that one of the things that Platt's book shows is that our missiology is intrisincally tied to ecclesiology. How we view the church in terms of local and global, and how one understands the makeup of the local church, all effect how a group of Christians approach missiology. Though some here have many problems Sovereign Grace Ministries' polity, I think this is one thing that they should be commended on. Their view of the local church, and the global church, affects how they understand the Great Commission and church planting, at home and abroad. Their understanding of ecclesiology has shaped their missiology and vice versa.



Yes, I believe you are perfectly right. 

Many churches have a view of the church that limits one's interactions with any Christian body outside of their own local church. This makes partnership for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission to be a next-to-impossible task. 

In the 1830s or so in America many calvinistic baptists became anti-missionary. Their main area of contention was ecclesiological, they opposed the missionary societies springing up and the efforts to support those societies (Luther Rice trying to raise funds for Judson and others, etc) as well as tract and bible societies.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Particular Baptist said:


> I think that one of the things that Platt's book shows is that our missiology is intrisincally tied to ecclesiology.



This is what the SBC and Evangelicalism in general has often failed to understand, so that for all their passion for evangelism and missions, their efforts have been misdirected.


----------



## Pergamum

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Particular Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that one of the things that Platt's book shows is that our missiology is intrisincally tied to ecclesiology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the SBC and Evangelicalism in general has often failed to understand, so that for all their passion for evangelism and missions, their efforts have been misdirected.
Click to expand...

 
Can you explain?


----------



## Particular Baptist

This discussion is very good, escpecially since it is occuring amongst Baptists, those of us who come from a tradition which has placed emphasis upon the local church and its autonomy. In recent days, I have found the Sovereign Grace Ministries model to be intriguing, and actually quite biblical, because missiology is included in their ecclesiology. Though I still believe that elders and deacons are the only normal offices which the Lord established for the local church, I think that the offices of apostle (in a stricty missiological sense, not an Apostle of Christ, but rather an apostle of the churches which is sent out to oversee church planting), prophet, and evangelist still have ecclesiological functions. The Lord would not leave the church without ecclesiastical officers whose primary role is to fulfill the Great Commission in places where there is no local church, or a local church which is mature enough to have members who could be called to the offices of Elder or Deacon. I think that our baptistic ecclesiology deserves a second look, and that it is right in regards to the local church, but there are those offices which still have a global ecclesiological emphasis.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> Can you explain?



I can speak specifically with regards to the SBC:


Missions has been for the most part removed from the purview of the local church. It is mostly a para-church work (i.e. mission boards). SBC Missionaries are in no way directly accountable to any local church or its leadership. 
A great deal of money gets wasted in local, state, and national bureaucracies which spend profligately on high six-figure salaries (I call 'em "Convention Fat-Cats") and offices with mahogany furniture and plush carpeting. 
Pragmatism pervades much of the work done by both local churches as well as the mission boards (Numbers, numbers, numbers!).
Church planting is rarely understood as being the principle work of missions and is often has NO part of their various undertakings.
Local evangelism often fails to assimilate converts into the local church.

Those are some of the issues at the top of the list anyway.


----------



## Ivan

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can speak specifically with regards to the SBC:
> 
> 
> Missions has been for the most part removed from the purview of the local church. It is mostly a para-church work (i.e. mission boards). SBC Missionaries are in no way directly accountable to any local church or its leadership.
> A great deal of money gets wasted in local, state, and national bureaucracies which spend profligately on high six-figure salaries (I call 'em "Convention Fat-Cats") and offices with mahogany furniture and plush carpeting.
> Pragmatism pervades much of the work done by both local churches as well as the mission boards (Numbers, numbers, numbers!).
> Church planting is rarely understood as being the principle work of missions and is often has NO part of their various undertakings.
> Local evangelism often fails to assimilate converts into the local church.
> 
> Those are some of the issues at the top of the list anyway.
Click to expand...


Sadly, this is all true. For a variety of reasons I am sorely dishearten by what is going in the SBC. Where to turn, where to turn?


----------



## Pergamum

Particular Baptist said:


> This discussion is very good, escpecially since it is occuring amongst Baptists, those of us who come from a tradition which has placed emphasis upon the local church and its autonomy. In recent days, I have found the Sovereign Grace Ministries model to be intriguing, and actually quite biblical, because missiology is included in their ecclesiology. Though I still believe that elders and deacons are the only normal offices which the Lord established for the local church, I think that the offices of apostle (in a stricty missiological sense, not an Apostle of Christ, but rather an apostle of the churches which is sent out to oversee church planting), prophet, and evangelist still have ecclesiological functions. The Lord would not leave the church without ecclesiastical officers whose primary role is to fulfill the Great Commission in places where there is no local church, or a local church which is mature enough to have members who could be called to the offices of Elder or Deacon. I think that our baptistic ecclesiology deserves a second look, and that it is right in regards to the local church, but there are those offices which still have a global ecclesiological emphasis.


 
Spencer, 

You might be interested in this book (review linked): Apostolic Function in 21st Century Missions by Alan R. Johnson: A Review | RBS Tabletalk

---------- Post added at 03:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 AM ----------




Ivan said:


> C. M. Sheffield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can speak specifically with regards to the SBC:
> 
> 
> Missions has been for the most part removed from the purview of the local church. It is mostly a para-church work (i.e. mission boards). SBC Missionaries are in no way directly accountable to any local church or its leadership.
> A great deal of money gets wasted in local, state, and national bureaucracies which spend profligately on high six-figure salaries (I call 'em "Convention Fat-Cats") and offices with mahogany furniture and plush carpeting.
> Pragmatism pervades much of the work done by both local churches as well as the mission boards (Numbers, numbers, numbers!).
> Church planting is rarely understood as being the principle work of missions and is often has NO part of their various undertakings.
> Local evangelism often fails to assimilate converts into the local church.
> 
> Those are some of the issues at the top of the list anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, this is all true. For a variety of reasons I am sorely dishearten by what is going in the SBC. Where to turn, where to turn?
Click to expand...

 
I know that the Southern Baptist missions focuses on trying to start, "Church planting movements" or "people movements" in which church-planting is an integral part. In Asia they seem to use a variety of platforms and covers in order to gain access into the country, but the primary objective is still making disciples and gathering those disciples into bodies. Perhaps due to the use of these platforms (entering the country as an english teacher or medical workers or agriculturalist) it does not appear that their main aim is church-planting but I can assure you that the missionaries and leaders/strategy coordinators that I know from the IMB are church-planting focused, at least in Asia.

The word pragmatism is thrown about carelessly very often. All missionaries should be practical, as long as they are biblical. Hudson Taylor dressed like a China-Man and Judson built a teaching gazebo just like the local religious leaders where he ministered. There is one strategy among Muslims called "The Camel Method" and the IMB is discussing this method as to whether it is practical or it falls into pragmatism.

A great deal of money is used, yes. I would like to think that there are good justifications for their use of funds. All missions have overheads. The material printed by the IMB is often outstanding and some of their schools overseas are also very good. My own mission takes off a certain percentage for "overhead" as well but this is a fair exchange since they have certified CPAs receipting funds and helping me with taxes, and they must print their publications, etc. it is a necessary "evil" to use money for things other than direct evangelism. The IMB should be using the ECFA (Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability) and the ECFA gives a score after each yearly audit of the mission orgs that they serve. I am sure this is available.

*Where to turn?* For Asia I would recommend World Team (World Team) and Pioneers. 

Missions and local churches: World Team and a few other orgs are now moving more and more to a concept called "Church-based Teams." They are waking up to the vital role of local churches in missions. Many local churches are trying to send their missionaries, but without adequate knowledge or training these direct-sent missionaries often crash and burn. So World Team and some other orgs are partnering with local churches to train and send teams of 2 or more from the same local church and even try to provide on-site training at these local churches. The church and the mission org sign an MOU to work together but the local church handles most matters and the mission helps serve as quality control and advisor. This seems a good way to enpower local churches while still trying to serve them with the specific and concentrated skills and experiences found in missionary societies (many locals churches are solely monocultural and know little about the logistics of sending).

So, where to turn? Raise up a team of 2 or more and PM me!


----------



## Ivan

Pergamum said:


> *Where to turn?*


 
Sorry, I was speaking in regards to a denomination, not missions.


----------



## Pergamum

Ivan,

In western Missouri and Kansas there is an association of solid calvinistic southern baptist churches, the Spurgeon Baptist Association of Churches, sbaoc.org I think. This might give you some fellowship.


----------

