# Where, o where, should missionaries go?



## jgrant1118

I recently had the opportunity to listen to "Doing Missions When Dying Is Gain" by John Piper. After listening, you might imagine that the only place missionaries should be going is to the places where you will (or likely) die for the gospel. Piper was referring to Revelation 6:11 as he suggested we need more martyr's since the text expects more to die. In "Missions as Fasting" by Michael Oh stressed the need to have more missionaries focused on the 10/40 window. He mentioned the staggering lack of missionaries in the places where 3 billion people live and have no opportunity to hear the Gospel. One particularly powerful statement made by Oh was something like, "We in the west have the opportunity to sit around and debate particulars concerning the second coming of Christ. We do that while a massive portion of the world's population has never heard of the first coming." With all that being said, what are your thoughts on missionary needs? I personally know people who are in, or are raising support for missions on three different continents. Should we discourage missionaries to certain places in favor of them heading to the 10/40 window? Are we Westerner's not willing to give everything up like the missionaries of old?


----------



## Romans922

you are at RTS Jackson, go across the street!!!


----------



## Wannabee

There are many missionary hobby horses out there. Some tout the 10/40 window. Others will say that if you're not in imminent danger of being killed, eaten, maimed or some such calamity then you're holding out on Christ. We need to be careful how we think through these things.
Christ is needed wherever there are men. We once considered missions to Italy, which is considered a missionary graveyard because so few missionaries last there. One close friend of mine laughed at me and teased me that I'd "really be roughing it" if we went there, as if our time would be used taking in sights, enjoying food and living it up in the Italian culture. But, in a place saturated with a generation who has seen the bareness of a false faith in Christ it is incredibly difficult to help them see the need for Christ as He truly is rather than the babe in Madonna's arms or the emaciated crucifix.
Then there are areas with massive amounts of missionaries of all sorts of shades and stripes offering every doctrine under the sun. Charismatics are into missions big time, and tout sensational experiences as necessary and indicative of salvation. Such places would be a challenging ministry as well.
God prepares each one of us to serve in different capacities. Some study French in high school thinking it's cool or because their parents made them. Then they watch in wonder as God orients their lives so they could serve as missionaries in France or one of the French speaking African nations. Another has a father from an obscure country and finds that he can get citizenship there which would make a visa unnecessary. It is ours to pursue faithfulness first and foremost. Look for opportunity. Seize it for the glory of God and serve Him for His glory, wherever that may be.
Remember, the main verb in the great commission is "make disciples." We're to be about that no matter where and in all our _going_.


----------



## Jack K

Then there are those who would say missionaries ought to focus on the great cities that are power centers, where culture is influenced and impact can be greatest. Indeed, it seems that may have been Paul's strategy. I don't think that's the only good answer, but I like it better than looking for the place you're most likely to die.

Of course, some places there may be overlap. And is not anywhere we have opportunity a good place to go?


----------



## Edward

jgrant1118 said:


> Where, o where, should missionaries go?



Perhaps where they are called to go?


----------



## JennyG

send them to Scotland


----------



## Mushroom

Does the following verse have any bearing on our concept of biblical missions?:


> Mat 10:14-15 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. (15) Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.


Is this instruction from the Lord's mouth incorporated in any way in our missions strategy today, or is there some reason why it does not apply?


----------



## jambo

Whilst the 10/40 window covers an area of huge need, yet it must be remembered that many of those countries are closed countries to the gospel. However the likes of FEBA radio do a great work in penetrating defensive walls via the airwaves. 

I think you need to asses your own character and qualities. Do you have a stomach for foreign spicy food? Could you cope with the climate? How are you at learning new languages? Are you a pastor, a preacher, an evangelist, a church planter? Could you work within a team which may be composed of multi-nationals workers? Sometimes the biggest frustrations on the missionfield can come from fellow workers from a different culture. Could you cope having to work alongside British or Austrailian or Latin American workers or wherever they may be from? Can you submit to local church leadership? Are you adaptable? Do you have stickability? Can you cope with being away from your home country and family for long periods? Could you cope being in a culture that is so totally different to what you are used to and may even be hostile to you home culture and country? How do you relate to Moslems or Hindus or Buddhists or whatever the local religion happens to be? Are you a doctor or a engineer with skills that could get you into a country as a tentmaker? 

If you read Judson's famous letter to his prospective father-in-law, it gives you an idea of what is to be endured How’s this for a Courtship letter? From the hand of Adoniram Judson. « Lawn Gospel

Having said all this there is of course the extra dimension of the Lord's calling, equipping and enabling. Although the Lord can do wondrous through the most unlikely people you do need to have basic qualities. I have seen people train hard and study hard for the mission field only to return after a very short time because they could not cope with a hot climate or the strange culture.

The missionfield is not a big adventure. It is not for those who simply want to "escape" form their own environment. It will not make you walk closer with God. If your walk with God is not good here then it wont be any better there. If you are not evangelising here then you will not evangelise there. I believe your missionfield is where you are _now_. Today you should be working faithfully in whatever corner of the vineyard you happen to be in and tomorrow the Lord may move you to a different part of the vineyard.


----------



## Mushroom

Could someone point me to some documentation of Adoniram Judson's successes in his endeavors in Burma? As I understand it, he put 2 sisters through much misery then death as his wives, and never planted a single Church in that country, which is today for the most part bereft of the gospel. Stories of blind martyrdom may stir the emotions, but are they biblical? There were some successes in Burma, in the northwest provinces bordering the Indian state of Mizoram where there is a majority Christian population, planted by Presbyterian missionaries who evidently didn't make the hall of fame because there just wasn't enough self-inflicted misery and death to inspire the missionary biography mills.

There is sacrificial and then there is just plain stupid. Shaking dust off feet must have some part to play in all this, or the Lord wouldn't have bothered mentioning it to the first missionary effort ever undertaken.


----------



## MarieP

Brad said:


> Does the following verse have any bearing on our concept of biblical missions?:
> 
> 
> 
> Mat 10:14-15 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. (15) Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this instruction from the Lord's mouth incorporated in any way in our missions strategy today, or is there some reason why it does not apply?
Click to expand...

 
My pastor pointed out something from Acts that's very interesting and pertinent:

Acts 13
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us: I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’"

and then a few verses later:

Acts 14
1 Now it happened in Iconium that they went together to the synagogue of the Jews, and so spoke that a great multitude both of the Jews and of the Greeks believed. 

So don't be too quick to shake the dust off your feet...just because those Jews in Pisidian Antioch judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, and just because the church would turn to the Gentiles as the focus of their mission, doesn't mean they did away with "to the Jew first." Or that Paul still didn't have a burning desire for the salvation of the Jews, as he states in Romans 9.


----------



## Wannabee

Brad said:


> Could someone point me to some documentation of Adoniram Judson's successes in his endeavors in Burma? As I understand it, he put 2 sisters through much misery then death as his wives, and never planted a single Church in that country, which is today for the most part bereft of the gospel. Stories of blind martyrdom may stir the emotions, but are they biblical? There were some successes in Burma, in the northwest provinces bordering the Indian state of Mizoram where there is a majority Christian population, planted by Presbyterian missionaries who evidently didn't make the hall of fame because there just wasn't enough self-inflicted misery and death to inspire the missionary biography mills.
> 
> There is sacrificial and then there is just plain stupid. Shaking dust off feet must have some part to play in all this, or the Lord wouldn't have bothered mentioning it to the first missionary effort ever undertaken.


 
Perhaps a slower response and a quick bit of research would have been prudent here. Judson's work did much for missions. It led to the formation of the first Baptist association in the U.S. Judson translated the Bible into Burmese. At his death there were over 100 churches and believed to be over 8000 Christians. Today there is a very large Baptist presence in Myanmar (formerly Burma). His efforts and the publication of both his biography and the writings of has wife, Ann, have been very helpful in educating people to the need of missionaries and the fact that they need support. A friend of mine goes there often to teach at conferences.

Finally, consider Jeremiah. How many converts did he have? How rough was his life? The measure of success is not found in conversions, but in faithfulness. May we all strive toward that goal and measure our success accordingly with our love and devotion to Christ.


----------



## Mushroom

That's a good point, Marie, and I would not advocate being _quick_ to shake off dust, but it seems there is some part for the concept to play in how we execute missions, since Paul evidently incorporated it in his strategy. I'd like to understand it better.

I know the initial reaction by some to that question may be to stereotype it as anti-missional hyper-calvinism, which it is not. I agree wholeheartedly that the Church is called to carry out the commission to proclaim the gospel to all the world. I wonder that Judson-style intentional martyrdom is often the idealized version (as mentioned in the OP), when it doesn't seem to have scriptural warrant. As Reformed Christians, we hold to the priesthood of all believers, and generally that in all vocations we are to serve Christ to His glory. If Judson had been a merchant and drug his wife off to Burma and engaged himself in local politics as he did, and through that caused her miserable death and the terrible suffering of his children, we'd think he was irresponsible. Why is it different for missionary than merchant? Paul took able-bodied men along with him on his journeys to dangerous places, not women and children, and he shook the dust off his feet when warranted. Should we learn something from that?

---------- Post added at 09:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------

Joe, that's the mission board version, but Judson never succeeded in planting Churches or missions in the native sectors outside Rangoon, and eventually began following Roman Catholic ascetic mysticism. Others followed that were inspired by the sensationalized accounts of derring-do published by the American Baptist Missionary Union, as did the British Army, and there were eventually more converts, but it is questionable to credit them to Judson.

Jeremiah didn't drag women and children along with him into the miry pit.


----------



## MarieP

Brad said:


> Could someone point me to some documentation of Adoniram Judson's successes in his endeavors in Burma? As I understand it, he put 2 sisters through much misery then death as his wives, and never planted a single Church in that country, which is today for the most part bereft of the gospel. Stories of blind martyrdom may stir the emotions, but are they biblical? There were some successes in Burma, in the northwest provinces bordering the Indian state of Mizoram where there is a majority Christian population, planted by Presbyterian missionaries who evidently didn't make the hall of fame because there just wasn't enough self-inflicted misery and death to inspire the missionary biography mills.
> 
> There is sacrificial and then there is just plain stupid. Shaking dust off feet must have some part to play in all this, or the Lord wouldn't have bothered mentioning it to the first missionary effort ever undertaken.


 
Brother, you may not realize how your post sounds, but I found it unduly harsh and quite mistaken. I think it is hardly fair for you to say, "he put 2 sisters through much misery then death as his wives" as if it was his fault or that they were spending their whole time wasting away. Or that his death was "blind martyrdom" or that the other missionaries in Burma weren't written about because "there just wasn't enough self-inflicted misery and death to inspire the missionary biography mills."

I would suggest you pick up and read My Heart in His Hands: Ann Judson of Burma by Sharon James or To the Golden Shore: The Life of Adoniram Judson by Courtney Anderson.

Also, you appear to be judging success as planting a lasting church. I would say that the fruit of his work, the Burmese Bible (still the most popular translation in the country), a Burmese Grammar and half a Burmese-English dictionary, and 63 churches with 7,000 believers was successful, but that's beside the point. The truth is, to borrow from the cliche, the Church isn't built in a day. Yes, the Great Commission does say to make disciples of all nations, but doesn't it say elsewhere that some plant seeds, other water, but it is God who gives the increase? Who's to say that the Judson's work wasn't useful in the Kingdom?

And yes, I would love to read about the work in northwest Burma that you mentioned. I trust that God has used and sustained them just as He did the Judsons. I'm sure they have their stories of success and perseverance as well. But please, don't dismiss the work of other believers just because you think people give them the limelight for reasons you perceive as less-than proper.

---------- Post added at 10:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 AM ----------




Brad said:


> Joe, that's the mission board version, but Judson never succeeded in planting Churches or missions in the native sectors outside Rangoon, and eventually began following Roman Catholic ascetic mysticism. Others followed that were inspired by the sensationalized accounts of derring-do published by the American Baptist Missionary Union, as did the British Army, and there were eventually more converts, but it is questionable to credit them to Judson.
> 
> Jeremiah didn't drag women and children along with him into the miry pit.



Where are you getting this information?

---------- Post added at 10:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 AM ----------




Brad said:


> since Paul evidently incorporated it in his strategy. I'd like to understand it better.



Extrabiblical revelation? His role as an apostle?


----------



## JBaldwin

Missionaries should go where God sends them, and they should be sent based on gifting and calling. Too often, people end up on the mission field for reasons other than gifting and calling. This does little to further the message of the Gospel. I've wondered for quite some time if the western church has been approaching missions all wrong in the last several decades. But I will leave that for another thread.


----------



## Mushroom

Marie, I've read several biographies and articles on the Judsons. I am by nature a skeptic, and tend to look for the story behind the sensationalized versions. One thing I've learned is that the fact that God uses a person or group or any single other thing in the harvesting of His people out of the world does not confer a status of infallibility. I agree that those so called and equipped should definitely go to dangerous and dark places in the world to proclaim the gospel. But I would question the true calling of a man who wanted to go to Burma in the early 1800's who thought it acceptable to marry and have children as well. I believe those to be mutually exclusive callings in life. Either a missionary to risky realms, or a family man, but not both. Paul seemed to practice that, why shouldn't we follow that example? 

He that does not provide for his own is worse than an infidel. That provision in my estimation would include refraining from willfully exposing them to danger. Hudson may have done more to send misguided sisters and children to disease and death than we are willing to acknowledge. He was a pioneer in the movement of single women in the missions field. If he'd sent that letter to me asking for my daughter's hand I would have told him to man up and proceed on his journey as Paul saw fit - unmarried. That letter demonstrated that he was intentionally taking her along as an help-mate who was going to suffer and likely die in that capacity. If he had been a tinker, tailor, or candle-stick maker we'd call him nuts.


----------



## Phil D.

Brad said:


> Joe, that's the mission board version, but Judson never succeeded in planting Churches or missions in the native sectors outside Rangoon, and eventually began following Roman Catholic ascetic mysticism. Others followed that were inspired by the sensationalized accounts of derring-do published by the American Baptist Missionary Union, as did the British Army, and there were eventually more converts, but it is questionable to credit them to Judson.



You asked for documentation of the traditional account of Judson's labors. Can you provide documentation of your version?


----------



## JBaldwin

Brad said:


> Marie, I've read several biographies and articles on the Judsons. I am by nature a skeptic, and tend to look for the story behind the sensationalized versions. One thing I've learned is that the fact that God uses a person or group or any single other thing in the harvesting of His people out of the world does not confer a status of infallibility. I agree that those so called and equipped should definitely go to dangerous and dark places in the world to proclaim the gospel. But I would question the true calling of a man who wanted to go to Burma in the early 1800's who thought it acceptable to marry and have children as well. I believe those to be mutually exclusive callings in life. Either a missionary to risky realms, or a family man, but not both. Paul seemed to practice that, why shouldn't we follow that example?
> 
> He that does not provide for his own is worse than an infidel. That provision in my estimation would include refraining from willfully exposing them to danger. Hudson may have done more to send misguided sisters and children to disease and death than we are willing to acknowledge. He was a pioneer in the movement of single women in the missions field. If he'd sent that letter to me asking for my daughter's hand I would have told him to man up and proceed on his journey as Paul saw fit - unmarried. That letter demonstrated that he was intentionally taking her along as an help-mate who was going to suffer and likely die in that capacity. If he had been a tinker, tailor, or candle-stick maker we'd call him nuts.



Interesting thoughts. What of those missionary couples who both felt called to go? I personally know (and have known) couples who both felt called to go. In one case, the couple is childless. In the other, the couple remained childless for quite some time. When their children were born, they returned to the states. They continued ministering in the States. When the children were grown, they returned to the field. Their grown daughter returned with them. They remained there until the wife died of old age.


----------



## Mushroom

JBaldwin said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marie, I've read several biographies and articles on the Judsons. I am by nature a skeptic, and tend to look for the story behind the sensationalized versions. One thing I've learned is that the fact that God uses a person or group or any single other thing in the harvesting of His people out of the world does not confer a status of infallibility. I agree that those so called and equipped should definitely go to dangerous and dark places in the world to proclaim the gospel. But I would question the true calling of a man who wanted to go to Burma in the early 1800's who thought it acceptable to marry and have children as well. I believe those to be mutually exclusive callings in life. Either a missionary to risky realms, or a family man, but not both. Paul seemed to practice that, why shouldn't we follow that example?
> 
> He that does not provide for his own is worse than an infidel. That provision in my estimation would include refraining from willfully exposing them to danger. Hudson may have done more to send misguided sisters and children to disease and death than we are willing to acknowledge. He was a pioneer in the movement of single women in the missions field. If he'd sent that letter to me asking for my daughter's hand I would have told him to man up and proceed on his journey as Paul saw fit - unmarried. That letter demonstrated that he was intentionally taking her along as an help-mate who was going to suffer and likely die in that capacity. If he had been a tinker, tailor, or candle-stick maker we'd call him nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thoughts. What of those missionary couples who both felt called to go? I personally know (and have known) couples who both felt called to go. In one case, the couple is childless. In the other, the couple remained childless for quite some time. When their children were born, they returned to the states. They continued ministering in the States. When the children were grown, they returned to the field. Their grown daughter returned with them. They remained there until the wife died of old age.
Click to expand...

J, I have no issue with missionaries taking wives with them into the field so long as there is reasonable expectation of safety and provision. And there are probably very few places left in the world where that would not apply, except perhaps in some Muslim countries or wartorn areas. Early 19th century Burma was not a place that any westerner could conceive of as safe.


----------



## Rich Koster

In my humble opinion, ideally a missionary/witness to Christ should be in every city, town and villiage so that no one may be hindered from hearing God's call to His people.


----------



## Wannabee

Define "reasonable." And reasonable according to whose terms?
Today, in our culture, many think it unreasonable to not have health insurance. In fact, I've heard many Christians state that it's a sin for the man is failing to "provide for his own household" if they do not have health insurance, as if this was one of God's criteria for godliness. He doesn't call us to lives of safety. He doesn't call us to dwell on earthly provision. He calls us to die to ourselves and trust Him to provide for our every need. He has promised to provide for our needs. However, it may be that, for the greater glory of God, we need to suffer. We may need to starve. We may need to endure terrible illness. We may need to die. But we are counted as sheep for the slaughter. Joseph was sold into slavery because God did it for Good. Judas betrayed Christ because God did it for good. Stephen was martyred at the feet of Saul because God did it for good. And almost all the apostles were killed for their faith, because God did it for good. If safety were the criterion by which we were to assess our ministries then we would be bereft of that which Jesus promises will befall all who follow Him. 

Matthew 24:99 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.

Mark 13:13 And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 

Luke 6:22 Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man’s sake. 

Luke 21:16 You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death. 

Revelation 2:10-11 Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.


And to say Judson "dragged" these women to Burma is a terrible distortion of the truth. His second wife was already there, the widow of another missionary in Burma. Her subsequent illness could not be foreseen and she was on a boat in pursuit of medical aid when she died. His last wife was brought knowing the trials she would face. He didn't candy coat it but promised suffering. Furthermore, he didn't start the war that ravaged the land while he was there. He was caught in it.

One of the things that most saddened Judson was to see the comfort and apparent (safety) of the American church. They wanted to hear grand stories when he returned. He proclaimed Christ.


----------



## Mushroom

Joe, he could have done all that without endangering any women or children by not marrying. And probably more. Yes, what Joseph's brothers did they intended for evil, but God intended for good. So, do we go sell our younger brothers to slavers in hopes of the same result? All the verses you quote have to do with an individual facing trials that come upon him with faithful endurance. They contain not one word about pressing others into those situations to share in one's suffering. I don't remember Stephen pulling a wife and children into the mob with him as they contended with him. Secular armies don't send married couples and their children onto the battlefield, why would the Lord's army?

I suppose 'reasonable' may be a subjective term, but Judson seemed to understand the dangers, as evidenced by the letter to his FIL-to-be. My work calls for me to expose myself to dangerous situations all the time - climbing on ladders, walking steep roofs, operating dangerous machinery, enduring extremes of heat and cold, and just recently sliding a boat out onto a frozen pond to repair an aerator. If I were to ask, my wife would certainly come with me to do those things, because she loves me and is committed to submitting to me - but I would never ask her to, because she is simply not built or qualified for that kind of work. I do those things for the glory of God, as did Judson. You would think me a fool to endanger my wife with my work, why is he any different?

But even Judson himself knew it was a mistake to make him out to be a hero, which is what I'm pointing out - that we shouldn't close our eyes to errors of practice just because we are enamored of certain men or their stories. Where should Christ's ambassadors go? Everywhere. But there are appropriate qualifications relavant to destination and purpose that scripture and reason dictate that ought not be ignored. 

And there are some people who will simply reject the truth, so the when and why of shaking off of dust ought to be established.


----------



## Wannabee

First, I think you'll agree that comparing the dangers of your vocation to embracing the dangers of the world are two entirely different things. I've worked dangerous jobs as well. But, frankly, my wife was in more danger driving to the grocery store than I ever was on the job site. Furthermore, we are safer serving God anywhere than we are embracing apparent safety anywhere, regardless of the temporal dangers.
If my son came to me and said he was taking his wife and child to the jungles of Cambodia I would have terribly mixed emotions. I would be sad that they were moving away. In my frailty, I would be concerned for their safety. And yet I would never tell him he was being irresponsible to go minister to lost souls there. I would consider him so if he didn't get the proper training (language and culture mostly). But the simple fact of the matter is that even the most debase of men deserve the Gospel just as much as we do. And some of us, like Paul Washer, are called to just such a ministry. There are others we know who suffer illness, see their wives and children endure malaria, dengue and other illnesses in pursuit of God's glory in difficult situations (Three that we regularly pray for come immediately to mind). They have had arrows pointed at them and witness murder for the least of offenses. Yet, they endure by the grace of God because their goal is His glory, come what may.
Do we have the right to tell such men that they're irresponsible? No, in the comfort of my home I will do what I can through prayer and offering what I can to help provide every benefit available for them. And if things take a turn toward temporal tragedy I will offer whatever reprieve God gives me the means to offer.
Perhaps we will simply disagree on this. But I find that our embracing of western "safety" is a hindrance to our faithfulness more often than not.


----------



## Mushroom

Wannabee said:


> First, I think you'll agree that comparing the dangers of your vocation to embracing the dangers of the world are two entirely different things.


Joe, the dangers of my vocation *are* the dangers of the world in which I operate, just as variety of disease without medical cure, barbaric government and culture, and violent hatred for and fear of Christianity were the dangers of Judson's vocation. You seem to think I am saying Judson nor anyone else should not have gone to 19th century Burma with the gospel. I am not. I am saying he should not have taken a wife and produced children when he did go. I agree that we are called to sacrifice all that is needful for the gospel. That would include a family life if we are going to as dangerous a place as 19th century Burma. This is not 'western' safety, it is just safety, proper provision. David didn't take his wives into battle with him for a reason. Seems pretty selfish to bring a woman along to do such obviously dangerous man's work just to save oneself from loneliness.


----------



## MarieP

Brad said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I think you'll agree that comparing the dangers of your vocation to embracing the dangers of the world are two entirely different things.
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, the dangers of my vocation *are* the dangers of the world in which I operate, just as variety of disease without medical cure, barbaric government and culture, and violent hatred for and fear of Christianity were the dangers of Judson's vocation. You seem to think I am saying Judson nor anyone else should not have gone to 19th century Burma with the gospel. I am not. I am saying he should not have taken a wife and produced children when he did go. I agree that we are called to sacrifice all that is needful for the gospel. That would include a family life if we are going to as dangerous a place as 19th century Burma. This is not 'western' safety, it is just safety, proper provision. David didn't take his wives into battle with him for a reason. Seems pretty selfish to bring a woman along to do such obviously dangerous man's work just to save oneself from loneliness.
Click to expand...

 
First, I'd note that Judson wouldn't have had the food in prison he needed to survive if it wasn't for Ann.

Second, you're arguing too much- wouldn't that mean that a man who was converted under Nero wouldn't be wise to marry another convert and have children? That was much more immediately dangerous than Burma.

As to the reason "just to save oneself from loneliness," you assume that Judson necessarily was one of those who could bear singleness, for it is better to marry than to burn.


----------



## Wannabee

Brad,

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. No, I do not think you're saying single men shouldn't do this. I think I understand your desire for a safety net for the wife and children. And I sympathize with it. But I also perceive it as without biblical grounds, counting our own lives as too precious. And I do see it as a western imposition rather than a matter of faithfulness. Were it not, and were it a biblical principle, then every married man who comes to Christ in one of these cultures must, in order to keep his family _safe _and honor God, immediately remove his family from that dangerous culture and the diseases rampant in his area. If I understand your reasoning correctly, to do any less would be sin. Interestingly, Judson wrestled with the propriety of single women coming to the mission field, but allowed it later. 

As for the dangers of your vocation, I heartily disagree with your perception of what I said. I'll leave it at that though.

To add to MarieP's post, women are helpers. Her ministry to her husband was vital to his ministry. Furthermore, it _seems _that you would exclude women from the dangers that are inherent in faith in Christ, as if the same commands and promises didn't include them. Consider Peter. He was married. Did he flee Rome in order to keep his wife safe? No, rather, it seems he went to Rome in spite of the dangers. If tradition is accurate, she died a martyr's death because of it.


----------



## jgrant1118

Jambo, you brought up some wonderful questions! And, you're right, as Charles Bridges said in his work "The Christian Ministry," the calling of the Lord is essential. If there is not a "desire and a giftedness," it may be best to consider other things.

I appreciate all the thoughts! Go where the Lord calls and where his gifting in your life could be used most effectively!


----------



## Mushroom

Wannabee said:


> I think I understand your desire for a safety net for the wife and children. And I sympathize with it. But I also perceive it as without biblical grounds, counting our own lives as too precious. And I do see it as a western imposition rather than a matter of faithfulness. Were it not, and were it a biblical principle, then every married man who comes to Christ in one of these cultures must, in order to keep his family safe and honor God, immediately remove his family from that dangerous culture and the diseases rampant in his area. If I understand your reasoning correctly, to do any less would be sin.


Joe, you are carrying my reasoning too far, beyond what I am saying. Obviously to one living in those conditions upon regeneration, that is the lot to which the Lord has ordained him, but to intentionally go into the way of extreme harm is a man's business, not to be undertaken with his family in tow. Judson understood the danger of what he was doing, and chose to take a wife along for the ride, asking her father:


> whether you can consent to her exposure to the dangers of the ocean, to the fatal influence of the southern climate of India; to every kind of want and distress; to degradation, insult, persecution, and perhaps a violent death.


If he were doing this to pursue a career in business, and asked this of her father, do you think he would have been as agreeable? Please explain why there is a difference if the career is in missions?


----------



## Phil D.

Brad, I think you are being quite arrogant and presumptuous in this matter. Who are you (or I, or anyone else) to say that a particular woman isn't called by God to be a married helpmate to a man who is called to the mission field - irrespective of the danger they may face? Do you really think you are better capable of discerning the Judson's situation than they were? Have you ever read Ann's biography (which largely consists of her own diary accounts)? If you haven't, then I would strongly urge you do do so before further besmirching the Judson's motives or ministry. 

To make a sweeping statement like "to intentionally go into the way of extreme harm is a man's business", while perhaps superficially chivalrous, is unwarrantable. Do you have any biblical backing for making such a pronouncement - especially in the context of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ? 

Personally, I find your repeated disparagement (whether done wittingly or otherwise) of Judson's ministry to be very distasteful and dishonoring to a man who dedicated and ultimately gave his life for our Lord and Savior. Even if, for the sake of argument, the "only" thing he had accomplished - with Ann's inestimable help and support - was to give the Burmese people the Word of God in their own language (which is an indisputable historical fact) - wow! what a remarkable, useful and laudable accomplishment.


----------



## MarieP

Brad said:


> If he were doing this to pursue a career in business, and asked this of her father, do you think he would have been as agreeable? Please explain why there is a difference if the career is in missions?



Her father obviously believed that she would be a godly help-meet to Adoniram and a tool in God's hand to reach Burma with the Gospel. And Adoniram actually cared enough about her and about God's Word to ask permission of her father.

Do you think the men and women who were fellow workers with Paul in the Gospel were any less in danger than the Judsons? Yes, of course, with different roles. But in danger, nonetheless.

Romans 16
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house.
Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ. 6 Greet Mary, who labored much for us. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
8 Greet Amplias, my beloved in the Lord. 9 Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and Stachys, my beloved. 10 Greet Apelles, approved in Christ. Greet those who are of the household of Aristobulus. 11 Greet Herodion, my countryman. Greet those who are of the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord.
12 Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, who have labored in the Lord. Greet the beloved Persis, who labored much in the Lord. 13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine. 14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren who are with them. 15 Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them.


----------



## Mushroom

Phil D. said:


> Brad, I think you are being quite arrogant and presumptuous in this matter. Who are you (or I, or anyone else) to say that a particular woman isn't called by God to be a married helpmate to a man who is called to the mission field - irrespective of the danger they may face? Do you really think you are better capable of discerning the Judson's situation than they were? Have you ever read Ann's biography (which largely consists of her own diary accounts)? If you haven't, then I would strongly urge you do do so before further besmirching the Judson's motives or ministry.
> 
> To make a sweeping statement like "to intentionally go into the way of extreme harm is a man's business", while perhaps superficially chivalrous, is unwarrantable. Do you have any biblical backing for making such a pronouncement - especially in the context of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ?
> 
> Personally, I find your repeated disparagement (whether done wittingly or otherwise) of Judson's ministry to be very distasteful and dishonoring to a man who dedicated and ultimately gave his life for our Lord and Savior. Even if, for the sake of argument, the "only" thing he had accomplished was to give the Burmese people the Word of God in their own language (which is an indisputable historical fact) - wow! what a remarkable, useful and laudable accomplishment.


Phil, I think you are being quite arrogant and presumptuous yourself. Judson may be your sacred cow, but he's not mine. His next misstep after deciding to drag a sister into the misery he himself predicted for her was to abandon the covenantal faith he was raised in to run headlong into the credo-baptist error, so as warm-fuzzy inducing as the horrific experience of his poor family may seem to some, I remain non-plussed. Yes, at least the miserable experiences and deaths of 3 wives who willingly submitted (his 3rd died of TB contracted in Burma) along with quite a few of his children did produce a Burmese language Bible, and that is a good thing, no doubt, that he could just as well have accomplished without so much carnage along the way if he'd had the courage to go about this business unmarried. You are welcome to hold him in higher regard than the man himself thought appropriate, I would rather view things from a more realistic vantage point. I appreciate what he was able to accomplish. I just don't think he should have taken a wife to do it. I believe I am entitled to my opinion. If you perceive it to be arrogant that I don't share your opinion, I can only smile in reply.

---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------



MarieP said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he were doing this to pursue a career in business, and asked this of her father, do you think he would have been as agreeable? Please explain why there is a difference if the career is in missions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her father obviously believed that she would be a godly help-meet to Adoniram and a tool in God's hand to reach Burma with the Gospel. And Adoniram actually cared enough about her and about God's Word to ask permission of her father.
> 
> Do you think the men and women who were fellow workers with Paul in the Gospel were any less in danger than the Judsons? Yes, of course, with different roles. But in danger, nonetheless.
> 
> Romans 16
> 3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house.
> Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ. 6 Greet Mary, who labored much for us. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
> 8 Greet Amplias, my beloved in the Lord. 9 Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and Stachys, my beloved. 10 Greet Apelles, approved in Christ. Greet those who are of the household of Aristobulus. 11 Greet Herodion, my countryman. Greet those who are of the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord.
> 12 Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, who have labored in the Lord. Greet the beloved Persis, who labored much in the Lord. 13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine. 14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren who are with them. 15 Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them.
Click to expand...

Marie, I appreciate your position, but could you answer the question I asked that you quoted?


----------



## MarieP

Brad said:


> Marie, I appreciate your position, but could you answer the question I asked that you quoted?


 
I thought I did. I guess I'll have to be more direct, which is something that I was having trouble doing because I really don't fully understand where you're coming from. Don't get me wrong, I understand there's a desire to protect and guard that resides in the heart of every godly man for his wife and children. But apparently both Adoniram and Ann, as well as Ann's father, when weighing things in the balance, saw that there was something greater than their own safety. They saw a land that was unreached with the Gospel. They saw souls that needed to be set free from their slavery to sin. They saw a people worshipping idols made by human hands. Ultimately, they had faith that Christ would be glorified in Burma, and they wanted to be part of that.

Let me ask you this, if the Judsons had gone to Burma and had immediate success, let's say 10,000 converts in one year. Let's say that Ann had 7 children who grew up healthy, and Adoniram never fell into the deep depression that he felt for a time (from which God graciously delivered him). And, let's say their views on baptism never changed. Would you be so cynical then?


----------



## Wannabee

Dear Brad,

Perhaps you brought more to light in your reaction to Phil than you intended.

Sacred cow? Simply patronizing brother. There was no call for that. Furthermore, you continue to use inflammatory and dramatic terminology, as well as personal perception, to drive your point home rather than Scripture and biblical principles.

Judson didn't drag anyone. They went knowing. You make it sound as though he tied them to the mast of the ship by their hair so they couldn't get away. And, quite frankly, there can be joy in misery. If our circumstances determine our joy then we fail to know Christ as He is.

"abandon the covenantal faith he was raised in to run headlong into credo-baptist error..."? Brad, I want to be careful because I can't see into your heart clearly on this, but you're coming across as a bitter, resentful man who's made himself judge and jury over another man according to dictates of your own making. Of course, I see Judson's illumination regarding baptism as a wonderful freeing from error and applaud his directness and honesty in writing to those who sent him in order to inform them of his change and give them the opportunity to respond accordingly. I have his book on baptism and consider it a treasure.

Furthermore, who are you to say that he could have accomplished the same thing with less carnage? You weren't there. You didn't witness his life as the Burmese did. Who we are among people, our daily faithfulness, is much more powerful than any work we do. Without the first the second is vain and hypocritical. Also, translation work outside of the culture is much less affective because of the nuance of linguistics among people. We can study Latin and grasp it pretty well because it hasn't changed much. Greek is more difficult because it was constantly changing up to and well past the life of Christ. English is a challenge because so many speak it in so many places so it's morphed. Try telling an Aussie not to get pissed.

Being a part of the culture is very helpful in building a viable and accurate translation. That's why translators go to the people. They serve them. They live with them. They learn how they think to the best of their ability. They ask them about the translation to make sure it's accurate. And they strive to live what they're proclaiming among the people as a model of the truth they're espousing. We are, after all, living epistles.

One of the greatest things about Hudson Taylor was the fact that he worked hard at becoming part of the culture he lived in. The results were wonderful. Perhaps seeing Judson's life had as much or more affect on the hearts of people for Christ than his translation work alone ever could have.

As for holding him in higher regard than he thought appropriate, isn't that the mark of a man of God? Didn't Paul consider himself the least of the apostles, the greatest of sinners and wholly unworthy? Didn't He cringe when men worshiped him? Yet we hold him in incredibly high esteem.

"I would rather view things from a more realistic vantage point." Whether you intend to or not, this statement says that anyone who disagrees with you is unrealistic, period. And your smile in reply serves no godly purpose whatsoever. Be honest with yourself. Why did you say that?

May we be humble slaves of Christ, bold in our witness and fearless in our faithfulness to Christ Jesus, resting in and trusting Him with joy, regardless of the circumstances dictated for us before the foundation of the world.


----------



## Phil D.

Also, just for the sake of bringing some historical perspective and accuracy here, there have been many missionary couples from many different denominations who went knowingly into harm's way, upon which the wife soon died due to various adversities. Within my own denomination's heritage, the names of John and Mary Paton (Scottish Presbyterian, to New Hebrides, 1850's) and John and Louisa Lowrie (American Presbyterian, to India, 1830's) could be mentioned. I say Praise God for faithful, fearless and fruitful missionaries like the Judsons, Pattons and Lowries, and may He indeed raise up many more!


----------



## Mushroom

Marie, just so I can be clear, are you saying the fact that it was for missionary work rather than business made it more acceptable to take along a wife?


Wannabee said:


> Sacred cow? Simply patronizing brother. There was no call for that. Furthermore, you continue to use inflammatory and dramatic terminology, as well as personal perception, to drive your point home rather than Scripture and biblical principles.


The term sacred cow, as I'm sure you are aware, Joe, refers to something held in such high regard that the possible failings are unseen or disregarded, which is the point I have been making. It was not meant to be patronizing, but one could perceive your chiding as such. But fear not, brother, I am not offended. As for scripture, I personally think the admonition to provide for one's own family is enough. If you need more, it will have to wait until I have more time to devote.


Wannabee said:


> "abandon the covenantal faith he was raised in to run headlong into credo-baptist error..."? Brad, I want to be careful because I can't see into your heart clearly on this, but you're coming across as a bitter, resentful man who's made himself judge and jury over another man according to dictates of your own making.


Not bitter or resentful, Joe, just honest in saying I view that change in his view of the sacrament to be error, as I do his decision to take along a wife into what he himself considered likely to end in violent death. Which is one more reason not to idolize the man beyond ability to acknowledge his human frailty.


Wannabee said:


> Furthermore, who are you to say that he could have accomplished the same thing with less carnage? You weren't there. You didn't witness his life as the Burmese did. Who we are among people, our daily faithfulness, is much more powerful than any work we do. Without the first the second is vain and hypocritical. Also, translation work outside of the culture is much less affective because of the nuance of linguistics among people. We can study Latin and grasp it pretty well because it hasn't changed much. Greek is more difficult because it was constantly changing up to and well past the life of Christ. English is a challenge because so many speak it in so many places so it's morphed. Try telling an Aussie not to get pissed....


I have not said that he should not have immersed himself in the culture, Joe, I said he could have done so without a wife.


> As for holding him in higher regard than he thought appropriate, isn't that the mark of a man of God? Didn't Paul consider himself the least of the apostles, the greatest of sinners and wholly unworthy? Didn't He cringe when men worshiped him? Yet we hold him in incredibly high esteem.


Adoniram Judson was not Paul. I have not said that I don't hold him in high esteem, only not higher than is appropriate. He accomplished by God's grace some very good things in the promulgation of the gospel. He exhibited some error. He is not a 'sacred cow' to me. Very few men are. Paul, however.... well, you get my drift.


> "I would rather view things from a more realistic vantage point." Whether you intend to or not, this statement says that anyone who disagrees with you is unrealistic, period. And your smile in reply serves no godly purpose whatsoever. Be honest with yourself. Why did you say that?


I said what you quoted because I mean it, and it is what I have said all along. I believe many folks let the romanticization of Judson's career blind them to his errors. I prefer not to do so. I said the part about just having to smile because the accusation was that I am being arrogant and presumptuous because I disagree with Phil's opinion. It struck me as funny, because it appears to me that Phil is the one being arrogant and presumptuous that his opinion is obviously the right one, and disagreement is unfathomable to him. Clear enough?


> May we be humble slaves of Christ, bold in our witness and fearless in our faithfulness to Christ Jesus, resting in and trusting Him with joy, regardless of the circumstances dictated for us before the foundation of the world.


Amen!
Phil D.


> Also, just for the sake of bringing some historical perspective and accuracy here, there have been many missionary couples from many different denominations who went knowingly into harm's way, upon which the wife soon died due to various adversities. Within my own denomination's heritage, the names of John and Mary Paton (Scottish Presbyterian, to New Hebrides, 1850's) and John and Louisa Lowrie (American Presbyterian, to India, 1830's) could be mentioned. I say Praise God for faithful, fearless and fruitful missionaries like the Judsons, Pattons and Lowries, and may He indeed raise up many more!


Phil, perhaps my point is being lost in the cloud of outcry against my unwillingness to canonize Judson. Yes, he accomplished some good things for the kingdom, as have all the others you mention. But that does not mean they were without error. It is my position that to knowingly take women and children into situations of extreme danger is inappropriate. That was in reference to the OP, which asked where should we go with the gospel, whether it should only be to places where we will likely die for doing so. I believe we should go wherever it is absent, and that when that is to extremely dangerous places, it should be as Paul did, sans wife and children. That people have done otherwise and still been used of God does not convey upon the practice the approval of the Lord. God has used many folks who would certainly fall outside the pale of orthodoxy in His pursuit of this sinner, enough for me to know that their use was not an endorsement of their methods. That is all I am saying. You can take it for the little that it is worth... or not. Your Prerogative.


----------



## Wannabee

I do appreciate the apparent tone of your response Brad. It seemed well thought out and came across as graciously disagreeing. Thank you.

I don't think anyone here considered Judson, or any of the others, including Paul, to be perfect. Nobody seems to worship him. Nobody "canonized" him. The response rose up largely because of the denigration of a servant of God because of your personal biases. Incidentally, provision goes far beyond temporal protection. Spiritual protection is much more important and may mean embracing temporal dangers. Perhaps somewhere in the midst of this lies the disagreement. I, for one, do not romanticize Judson. I admire him. I am thankful for him. I am challenged by him. And I am mindful of my propensity to embrace comfort too willingly when I ponder men who are willing to give their all for Christ. When I read of men such as Judson I realize I am not giving what I could/should right where I am, and yet have it so easy.

As for a missionary, such as Judson, not immersing himself in the culture if he's married, honestly, I don't get it. It rings strangely in my ears, as though life were something to hold on to rather than something to spend. Judson was married. He was commissioned. He was sent. He served faithfully. He and Ann both immersed themselves into the culture in an effort to know the people and learn the language. They were a team, served as a team and ministered for many years together. In spite of their hardships, perhaps mostly brought on by his imprisonment, she died of smallpox of all things. Imagine going to Burma and dying of smallpox. I would expect some exotic illness or the rigors of life would have taken her. The point being, they enjoyed marriage and ministry together for many years. I fail to see how this is in any way irresponsible on Judson's part. And when I included his calling I naturally included his wife, as a man's calling cannot be without his wife. The only alternative I could imagine is that he missed his calling and should have adapted a more comfortable lifestyle in order to preserve his wife's health.

Again, than you for your thoughtful response. You handled my challenges with graciousness, which was my prayer.

Have a blessed Lord's Day,


----------



## kvanlaan

> J, I have no issue with missionaries taking wives with them into the field so long as there is reasonable expectation of safety and provision. And there are probably very few places left in the world where that would not apply, except perhaps in some Muslim countries or wartorn areas. *Early 19th century Burma was not a place that any westerner could conceive of as safe.*



Thing is, most of early 19th century Burma was likely as safe (or moreso) than much of early 19th century London. Also, as for not taking a wife into that scenario, we see two examples: Judson taking his two wives there, and Livingstone leaving his family behind while he went to different parts of Africa for years on end. Make no mistake, Livingstone's family suffered while he was in the field, and was as likely to die of cholera from the (English) village well as to be killed in the wilds of Africa (where they also spent time, and suffered, it seems, no more grievously than when they were in England).

Pergy's children may be bitten tomorrow by a snake and drop dead. But the witness of said children even to date has been powerful and shows such a love for the people he ministers to that he is willing to take them all into the jungle to be with this lost tribe. Good on him. I hope my children are used as powerfully as he and his.


----------



## Pergamum

Brad said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I think you'll agree that comparing the dangers of your vocation to embracing the dangers of the world are two entirely different things.
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, the dangers of my vocation *are* the dangers of the world in which I operate, just as variety of disease without medical cure, barbaric government and culture, and violent hatred for and fear of Christianity were the dangers of Judson's vocation. You seem to think I am saying Judson nor anyone else should not have gone to 19th century Burma with the gospel. I am not. I am saying he should not have taken a wife and produced children when he did go. I agree that we are called to sacrifice all that is needful for the gospel. That would include a family life if we are going to as dangerous a place as 19th century Burma. This is not 'western' safety, it is just safety, proper provision. David didn't take his wives into battle with him for a reason. Seems pretty selfish to bring a woman along to do such obviously dangerous man's work just to save oneself from loneliness.
Click to expand...

 
You seem to be equating Judson's taking his wife to Burma as analogous to David's taking his wife to battle. 

However, there are millions of women and children already in Burma and there are babies born there everyday.

Missionary work is not "man's work" and a missionary does well to model Christian family life to their host culture so that the unreached can see what a Christian family consists of and does on a day to day basis.


----------



## Pergamum

Back to the OP:* "Where should missionaries go"*

In general I think that they should prioritize the least-reached. 

You find out about the least-reached through research and through seeing where the geographic and ethno-linguistic boundaries lay. Our strategy should be to fill every dark hole with the Gospel ..and so we research where those dark holes are.

In general, healthier and younger couples who want to go to the hardest places ought to be allowed and encouraged to go there. We should not be too risk-averse. Later, if their health fails they can back up to an easier place.

This analogy is helpful: If you see 10 men carrying a log, and the log has one heavy end and one light end, and 9 of the ten men are supporting the light end...then we should try to go and heave the heavy end.

I am happy for any called servant of God, but if I had 100 Bible school graduates I would much rather see that 100 go to Jakarta than to Birmingham, Alabama (of course, here is where someone will reply...but there are souls in Birmingham, too...but the issue is not the question of the value of a human soul, for we know that US souls are just as important, but the issue is one of access...there are people-groups of one million souls that have never met a Christian and have never heard the Gospel in parts of Asia.) 

Next, we should try to match up training and ability and personal preferences (I don't like the cold, etc) to get people into places where an expectation of success can be maximized. If someone has no linguistic ability, don't have them learn Mandarin or do bible translation in a tribe.

The preferences of the couple and the sending church and the existing works on the field always play a role. Local churches are often woefully ignorant about what it takes to train and send a missionary, and many of them are mono-cultural and have no people who have even ever lived overseas, so local churches ought to consult with existing missionary organizations when they target unreached areas so that they may gain solid advice and appropriate training. 

I personally believe we should prioritize Asia because it contains roughly 3/4th of the world's population and the unreached of the world. But, for those that speak Spanish well already, perhaps this is a providential opening to minister in South American or Spain.

The 10/40 Window concept has its faults (Sumtra, the world's largest unreached island is technically not part of it), but it is a good way for laymen to wrap their minds around the largest areas of need.


----------



## Skyler

We should not _discourage_ missions to any area with unreached people, In my humble opinion. Perhaps place additional emphasis on some areas, but not discourage any.

Asia is probably ripe for evangelism, as much of it is coming out of a dark unsatisfying atheistic worldview. If we don't get there first, the Muslims probably will.

That said, Islam is probably going to be the church's major enemy in the next several decades, so it would probably be a good idea strategically to ramp up evangelistic efforts in those countries.

And, last but not least, from what I hear America is a lot less "Gospelized" than people realize. The statistic I heard a while ago was that seven out of ten Americans have never heard the true Gospel. There's an unreached people group right outside your front step.


----------



## Jesus is my friend

Please come to New England!,we are praying for a revival of hearts within the church through the faithful praching of the Word,we have experienced the first and second great awakenings (see Jonathan Edwards accounts of them here in the early 1700's) I cannot understand why anyone would not love to come plant a church,plant your roots here and have big Christian families.

A gullup poll in 2009 concluded we are an "unreached people group",why is that?,I dont have an answer,but it's easy to hang out in the Bible belt where there are Christian's everywhere,where's the fun in that?,we need faithful men,women and children to pray for us and act on it come join us and watch what God will do.

We cant even get Christian musicians to come here,not enough of a market for it?,what does that mean anyway?,I dont know but this is what we hear.

Why,there's a tremendous reform church right here in my town!,come on over we will make you a nice cup of tea and have some great fellowship together.


----------



## Wannabee

Wannabee found Pergamum's post helpful.



Pergamum said:


> Back to the OP:* "Where should missionaries go"*
> 
> Next, we should try to match up training and ability and personal preferences (I don't like the cold, etc) to get people into places where an expectation of success can be maximized.


Hmm, having grown up in Phoenix, I'm one who doesn't like the cold. Maybe I missed something.... 
Escanaba, Michigan (49829) Conditions & Forecast : Weather Underground


----------



## FenderPriest

Re the OP: "Where should missionaries go?"

People should be reaching out to their indigenous cultures with the Gospel, and select leaders should be looking towards unreached people groups where they can raise up, equip, and deploy indigenous people in those cultures to preach the Gospel. That's the NT pattern as far as I'm reading it. Money would be more wisely used this way and, I think, more effective witnesses for the Gospel would be raised up.


----------



## MarieP

Brad said:


> Marie, just so I can be clear, are you saying the fact that it was for missionary work rather than business made it more acceptable to take along a wife?


 
Was is right of both Priscilla and Aquila (interesting order of names- that would be an interesting study to see how it sounded in its context!) to "risk their own necks" for Paul in Romans 16:3? I think the issue here is not "why" but "why not?" To answer your question, I think it would have been foolish for both of them to go to Burma for business, but not for missions. What did you want them to do? Send spies into the land first to see if any giants lived there?


----------



## MarieP

By the way, yes, I know that the call to die to ourselves and take up our crosses and follow Christ is for all of us, not just those who are called to go work in a foreign mission field with the primary goal of teaching the Gospel and planting churches. Yes, I know each of us shine as lights in a dark world. Yes, the world will hate us, and God didn't promise it would be an easy task. I mean, it would be far more "safer" for all of us if we just sat down and shut up about this whole Gospel thing. You might not get the job you feel you need because it would keep you away from worship on the Lord's Day, and so you have to take a less-paying job (or 2). You might alienate your unbelieving family members if you believe God is calling you into full-time pastoral ministry. You and your church might be ridiculed or worse if you decide to witness in front of the local abortion clinic. How about sending several couples to start a work in a bad part of town that needs to be reached with the Gospel? Sure, we could do these things in such a way that's foolish. There's a time to escape harm- even Paul escaped Damascus in a basket. But it appears to me that to say Judson drug his two wives to Burma would be like saying Aquila drug Priscilla to risk her neck for Paul. Why did she have to get involved? Sure, we don't know the whole story, but I think it would be to judge another's servant to say Judson (or any other missionary couple. which I think is key to remember) was being neglectful.


----------



## Phil D.

I find the previous insinuation that missionary men who take their wives/families with them into potentially dangerous places is perhaps a breach of 1 Timothy 5:8 to be rather ridiculous. If one really wants to go down the path of interpreting 1 Timothy 5:8 in such a manner, then what about a man who, say, takes his wife or children for a ride on a motorcycle? After all, wouldn't they be considerably safer riding in a vehicle with airbags and seatbelts? So by the same suggested standard isn't then this man also guilty of "not providing" the best safety possible for his family? Moreover, isn't the latter often done simply for pleasure, while the former involves a sincerely perceived calling by God to spread the gospel?

Prediction: Someone will dispute the fact that riding in a vehicle is safer than riding on a motorcycle...


----------



## Mushroom

Marie - We don't know the specifics of Priscilla and Aquila risking their necks for Paul, so we can't specifically apply that to this subject. But if a Christian is called to serve the Lord in whatever his vocation might be, why would it be foolish to take a wife to Burma in the early 1800's for business but not so for missions? You seem to infer a man would be unnecessarily endangering his wife. It becomes necessary when it entails missions? Why? We're supposed to toss wisdom and prudence to the wind if it involves missions? Just as a businessman could have conducted his business as a single man, so could a missionary, and it would have been wise in both instances.

You are carrying my point to an absurd extreme. I have not said that believers should not take risks or brave dangerous ventures in the promulgation of the gospel. 

*I have only said that a man should not intentionally take a wife into situations where he knows beforehand she will likely die a violent death if it is not necessary.* 

Look at that statement as it stands alone. It seems a pretty sound principle. It only becomes objectionable when it casts a shadow over someone we consider too heroic to hear anything about other than plaudits.

Phil - Please see above. It is absurd to compare a motorcycle ride with 1813 Burma.


----------



## Pergamum

My first job as a missionary and a father and a husband is the spiritual well-being of my wife and children. If I can gain that better even at the cost of physical well-being, then I am still prioritizing correctly. 

US culture is all-pervasive. I often think the Christians who leave their children in the US school system and amidst the cacophany of American culture are being more neglectful than I am, because I am my children's main influencer of values. 

The physical dangers are much greater here, but the spiritual dangers are much greater in the US when my small voice gets drowned out by media and culture and friends, etc. 

My marriage and family life has never been happier as it has been when we are in a remote setting.


----------



## Mushroom

Pergs, I do not believe you have been remiss in taking your family where you are. There is no reason to expect that they should likely die a violent death there. In fact, I believe you are right, that it is a far healthier place to be than in my own town. Things are very different today than 200 years ago the world over. Now if you were talking about taking them up into a Taliban stronghold in the mountains of the Afghan/Pakistan border, I'd think you'd lost your gourd. It would be great for a single man to do that, but bringing a family would be reckless.


----------



## Phil D.

Brad said:


> It is absurd to compare a motorcycle ride with 1813 Burma.



Well, I guess "absurd" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it. Connecting in any respect missionaries who may feel called by God to serve with their spouses in what you might think is "too dangerous a place" to a passage that deems those in view to be worse than infidels, sure meets my definition of absurd.


----------



## Mushroom

Phil D. said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is absurd to compare a motorcycle ride with 1813 Burma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess "absurd" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it. Connecting in any respect missionaries who may feel called by God to serve with their spouses in what you might think is "too dangerous a place" to a passage that deems those in view to be worse than infidels, sure meets my definition of absurd.
Click to expand...

Phil, what a man 'feels' God is calling him to do would normally comport with the scriptures, would it not? If I 'felt' called to abandon my family without support to go preach the gospel to the Taliban, would you consider that a valid calling? How about if I took them with me? Then it would be OK? That's asinine.

1813 Burma would be the equivalent, as Judson evidently knew. Your emotions are clouding your reason.


----------



## Phil D.

Brad said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is absurd to compare a motorcycle ride with 1813 Burma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess "absurd" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it. Connecting in any respect missionaries who may feel called by God to serve with their spouses in what you might think is "too dangerous a place" to a passage that deems those in view to be worse than infidels, sure meets my definition of absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Phil, what a man 'feels' God is calling him to do would normally comport with the scriptures, would it not? If I 'felt' called to abandon my family without support to go preach the gospel to the Taliban, would you consider that a valid calling? How about if I took them with me? Then it would be OK? That's asinine.
> 
> 1813 Burma would be the equivalent, as Judson evidently knew. Your emotions are clouding your reason.
Click to expand...

 
Do I feel indignant toward some of your brash pronouncements? Sure. I readily admit it. 

One problem is that you are applying YOUR interpretation (i.e. what you "feel" is the proper interpretation) of 1 Timothy 5:8 here and, whether wittingly or not, disparaging an awful lot of godly men and women in the process. I have never, ever in all my considerable reading seen this verse applied to missionary situations like the ones under consideration. Does that suggest anything at all to you, brother?

Look, I think we will have to simply agree to disagree here. As such, I think it is probably best for me to simply bow out of the discussion. Go ahead, have the last word.

Pax


----------



## Wannabee

Brad said:


> *I have only said that a man should not intentionally take a wife into situations where he knows beforehand she will likely die a violent death if it is not necessary.*
> 
> Look at that statement as it stands alone.


 
We need to carry the context of the discussion with it though. Brad, you said that Adoniram was irresponsible for "dragging" his wives to Burma. You're assuming they would die a violent death. Ann died of smallpox. That could have happened anywhere. She didn't die a violent death. And they lived there 10 years together, serving the people and one another. Is there not a serious incongruity in your reasoning here?


----------



## Mushroom

I'm not assuming it, Joe, I'm reading what Judson himself wrote:


> whether you can consent to her exposure to the dangers of the ocean, to the fatal influence of the southern climate of India; to every kind of want and distress; to degradation, insult, persecution, and perhaps a violent death.


Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but it sounds like he expected this trip to bring her to misery and an early demise. Like going to Taliban-land would. What's the difference? 200 years and legend.


----------



## Pergamum

Many missionaries of the past put their children in boarding schools. Also, some left their families (to include wife) in Europe while they were on the field for a year or two at a time.

I do not think I would fault missionaries or accuse them of "abandoning their famlies." At the time, and even now, boarding schools were accepted, and many husbands left their families for long periods of service in the military. Missionary service is a far greater cause.

Also, in 1813 in SE Asia and Burma, millions of people existed and thousands of European traders or colonial officials lived, along with their families. There was no certainty of violent death, though the statistically odds of danger, granted, would have been greater. There were kings and kingdoms at that time and Burmese culture was not altogether backwards but was quite rich.



In regards to abandoning family to preach the Gospel to the Taliban: There are places in NW Iraq, in Kurdistan where I could see placing me and my family and where the risks versus the needs would allow me with good conscience to try to minister. The same in Afghanistan. From there, forays could be done into more dangerous areas as long as all possible reasonable precautions were taken. I think we err on the side of being too risk-averse in the West.


Brad, if your point is that we should factor in the health and safety of our families as well as factoring in the neediness of an area and the dangers of an area, I will grant your point. In picking a missionary location, you want to pick a place where you will be sustainable. Sustainable means being able to minister long-term there for long enough to learn the language and the culture and make a positive impact. We should all be ready for martyrdom, but being reckless makes for poor long-term strategy.

But back to the OP: 

I do think we need to prioritize the hard areas. And the more willing and healthy and equipped the prospective missionary couple is, the more we should encourage them to take the assignments that others cannot take. These hard areas will be prioritzed on the basis of the geographic and linguistic and cultural boundaries that resist the Gospel, and the number of other Christian teams already engaged in the task. 

Right now, I think Asia and the 10-40 Window are high priorities. But there are many more needs in many more places.

---------- Post added at 02:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 AM ----------




Brad said:


> I'm not assuming it, Joe, I'm reading what Judson himself wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> whether you can consent to her exposure to the dangers of the ocean, to the fatal influence of the southern climate of India; to every kind of want and distress; to degradation, insult, persecution, and perhaps a violent death.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but it sounds like he expected this trip to bring her to misery and an early demise. Like going to Taliban-land would. What's the difference? 200 years and legend.
Click to expand...

 
Note that Judson did say "perhaps" a violent death and not "probably" a violent death.


----------



## Mushroom

Pergamum said:


> I do not think I would fault missionaries or accuse them of "abandoning their famlies."


The abandonment statement included the phrase 'without support', to point out the irresponsibility of an action, not to impugn those who leave for a period with provision being made. I don't know of any missionaries who leave their families behind without making provision for them, although there may be some. We would wisely say that a call to do that was not valid.

The scenarios you describe sound reasonable to me Pergs, and the point that I've been trying to make is that recklessness is not wise or proper.


----------



## Pergamum

Brad, I see your point.

Do you know of any documented cases of missionaries leaving their families without "support"?

I know of some who have left them in very poor straits, but those conditions were the same in which they usually lived. 


So Brad, where do you think missionaries should go and how do we prioritize placement of new personnel to the field?


----------



## jgrant1118

Pergamum, thanks for your thoughts (and getting back to the main topic!). I think you are quite right in much of what you said. In my denomination, for every open pulpit that comes available, there are well over 50+ applications. There are people lining up for the next open pulpit in the US, but there are not lines and lines of people ready to go where there is no opportunity to hear the gospel! You are quite right to say that we also need to evaluate our gifting. Thanks for your thoughts!

Skyler, I hear you about not discouraging people. Maybe we should just encourage other places more rather than discourage some. Thanks for your thoughts!!



Jesus is my friend said:


> Please come to New England!,we are praying for a revival of hearts within the church through the faithful praching of the Word,we have experienced the first and second great awakenings (see Jonathan Edwards accounts of them here in the early 1700's) I cannot understand why anyone would not love to come plant a church,plant your roots here and have big Christian families.
> 
> A gullup poll in 2009 concluded we are an "unreached people group",why is that?,I dont have an answer,but it's easy to hang out in the Bible belt where there are Christian's everywhere,where's the fun in that?,we need faithful men,women and children to pray for us and act on it come join us and watch what God will do.
> 
> We cant even get Christian musicians to come here,not enough of a market for it?,what does that mean anyway?,I dont know but this is what we hear.
> 
> Why,there's a tremendous reform church right here in my town!,come on over we will make you a nice cup of tea and have some great fellowship together.


 
I hear you! I did my first year of seminary at Gordon-Conwell on the north shore. I was astonished to hear how dark the Boston area had become with number of churches compared to the people living there. To hear that Christian musicians won't go there is a shock!


----------



## Mushroom

Pergamum said:


> So Brad, where do you think missionaries should go and how do we prioritize placement of new personnel to the field?


Every where the gospel is absent. I don't really know what 10-40 window means, but I do know that Asia is a place in great need. I believe it is a good place for young families to engage in ministry. Also the muslim lands, although I think it better that single men for long term or older married men whose kids are grown for short-term, with their wives in safer areas, but alone in more dangerous regions. I personally would not be averse to climbing the hills of Afghan/Pakistan after my kids are on their own, if my wife were provided for adequately. Africa is a place of great need, but also many areas of great danger, which would require careful study as to where families are proper. All of Europe. The whole world, brother. But I like where you are, a place where there are many who have never before heard the name of Jesus. That's exciting.

But my opinion on these matters is just the musings of one uneducated in the field, so I speak with no certain knowledge, just the ramblings of a distant observer. Take with grain of salt. Maybe one day the Lord will provide means for me to do otherwise.


----------



## Pergamum

Brad, thank you for your musings.

---------- Post added at 11:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 PM ----------

Amazon.com: Operation World: The Definitive Prayer Guide to Every Nation (9781850788621): Jason Mandryk: Books

I would recommend the new Operation World to help see the world's greatest areas of need.

My strong assertion is that churches need to better prioritize as they engage in cross-cultural missions. 

I know churches that have generic missions budgets and their mission efforts consist mainly of canned food for the elderly in their own community or short term trips with high school students who are not prepped for long-term service, or even community meals where food are provided for free to the community in the name of "outreach" and yet these churches are not fielding people to places where the church is weak or non-existent nor are many churches raising up their own people to go.


----------



## kodos

Last year when I was looking for work, I was seriously looking into moving to the Boston area. I was very discouraged by the lack of decent churches. I mean, I couldn't even find a tepid evangelical church online! 

Almost all the churches there were RC, a homosexual affirming "Baptist church" and some little churches out in the boonies. It was going to be our greatest challenge if the Lord called us over there. And then I heard that most of the NE states are like that. Makes me sad.

But as you guys are saying - it is a definite missions field. But in the DFW area of Texas, it's also a missions field btw - a lot of people who think they know the gospel, but don't. A lot of people who feel like their good works will save them. 

Lots of cultists around here too. Mormons, and JWs abound.



jgrant1118 said:


> Pergamum, thanks for your thoughts (and getting back to the main topic!). I think you are quite right in much of what you said. In my denomination, for every open pulpit that comes available, there are well over 50+ applications. There are people lining up for the next open pulpit in the US, but there are not lines and lines of people ready to go where there is no opportunity to hear the gospel! You are quite right to say that we also need to evaluate our gifting. Thanks for your thoughts!
> 
> Skyler, I hear you about not discouraging people. Maybe we should just encourage other places more rather than discourage some. Thanks for your thoughts!!
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is my friend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please come to New England!,we are praying for a revival of hearts within the church through the faithful praching of the Word,we have experienced the first and second great awakenings (see Jonathan Edwards accounts of them here in the early 1700's) I cannot understand why anyone would not love to come plant a church,plant your roots here and have big Christian families.
> 
> A gullup poll in 2009 concluded we are an "unreached people group",why is that?,I dont have an answer,but it's easy to hang out in the Bible belt where there are Christian's everywhere,where's the fun in that?,we need faithful men,women and children to pray for us and act on it come join us and watch what God will do.
> 
> We cant even get Christian musicians to come here,not enough of a market for it?,what does that mean anyway?,I dont know but this is what we hear.
> 
> Why,there's a tremendous reform church right here in my town!,come on over we will make you a nice cup of tea and have some great fellowship together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you! I did my first year of seminary at Gordon-Conwell on the north shore. I was astonished to hear how dark the Boston area had become with number of churches compared to the people living there. To hear that Christian musicians won't go there is a shock!
Click to expand...


----------



## Pergamum

Rom:

_If everything is missions, then nothing is missions._

I know many churches have signs going out the door that say, "You are now entering the mission field" but there is a danger of defining missions too broadly. If we think that everyone is a missionary and everywhere is the mission field, then nobody will be one and nowhere will be one. It is hard to reach a goal or aim at a target if the goal or target is already everywhere.

I know of one church that grouped home and foreign missions into one financial pot and held community meals (giving away hotdogs to the community with a big sign that said "Come, let us set the table" and this ate up much of their missions budget (plus, most Americans don't need more hotdogs).

Other churches that believe that every christian is a missionary send out large numbers of non-strategic short-term trips where teenagers go and presume to teach older and wiser local elders and pastors and then return home to resume their normal lives with no long-term impact on them or the target population (a more narrow definition of missions and a more targetted approach would ensure that anyone coming overseas would come as interns or potential long-term workers and time and training would be invested in them to "return" the long-term investment by using short-term trips as training towards eventual long-term service). 

There is a being sent-out component to missions, and from Acts there is a cross-cultural componant, and also the intentional going to where the church is absent or very weak. 

I would use the term "evangelism" to same-culture church-planting efforts in the US.

Another example of a bad definition of missions is the "missions" program of some small micro-denominations (TRs among others) who, after claiming that there is no "Gospel witness" in many a city in the US, then strive to plant a church of their own narrow and specific stripe in that same city, though there might already be 10 different baptist churches of differing variety, and several PCA churches. I know several Truly Reformed men who have conceptualized missions in this way and their pronouncements of need come at the cost of belittling the other Gospel efforts of the body of Christ in that same city.

--
--
--
Again, I believe that we need to prioritize how we train people and where we endeavor to send people. 

If there is a young family willing to go out for the sake of the name and they are deemed as fitting and able to take the stresses of cross-cultural adaptation, then most mission agencies apply several factors such as (1) the gifts and abilities of the couple, as well as their fittedness and preferences, (2) Current works which need workers and present teams in which the new couple might fit in nicely, (3) where are the most strategic needs (defined by how large the population is without a solid Gospel witness, the responsiveness of the population, the geographical and ethno-linguistic barriers that need to be crossed to reach this target population, etc).

If there is a couple that want to and can go to Asia, it would be a real shame if they only went to Boston (unless they really began to feel a specific burden there) because there are potentially many more workers able to go to Boston to help or relieve them and the potential work-pool is less when it comes to couples willing and able to go to Asia. (of course, personal calling is a factor and some pastors have a very supportive and pastoral gifting that call them to remain in the established churches in the US to deepen those souls there, and others, like John Piper, seem to mobilize for missions from the US and this ability would diminish if he were to move overseas, so, yes, personal calling and giftedness is a factor).

So, Rom, while Boston is a needy area. I would also urge churches not to count this as their sole missions effort, but to put forth great efforts to research the needs worldwide and strive to plant a cross-cultural witness among a whole people-group that does not have a solid church among that whole language or ethnic group. In Asia there are hundreds of such groups, not only in the 10/40 window but also in SE Asia. For example, thee are 127 unreached people groups in Indonesia, Sumatra is the world's largest unreached island and these statistics do not even count the many tribes without the bible in Indonesia's easternmost region of Papua (over 200 languages without the Bible there).


----------



## Mushroom

Good stuff, Pergs.


----------

