# Can a missionary work with national denominations while on the field



## Pergamum (Jun 14, 2009)

I have been bumping up against a problem among some supporters (mostly two pastors, the two congregations seem to like me enough, but the pastors want to correct my views).

They are independant baptist and when they hear that some of my labors are alongside a national denomination in the province that I work, then they get troubled. They say that I haven't got my ecclesiology right and that I should not be working with anything that smells like a denomination because I would be violating the principle of independancy.


So my questions are these:

-Can a missionary work alongside a national denomination?

-If a missionary is working in a country and does not want to work alongside a national body of Christians, is it better than to bypass the local Christians and work on your own?

-Am I violating my principle of independancy if I work with others on a hard field where 100% agreement is hard to find? Am I then a pragmatist who doesn't care about doctrine? How much does a missionary have to agree with indigenous believers or indigenous/national church bodies before I can work with them?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jun 14, 2009)

Wow, Perg. Tough questions and I don't envy you the situation. I will definitely make this a matter of prayer on your behalf.

My  , I'd be more concerned about doctrine than I would denomination. I mean, do they have the true gospel and will a degree of fellowship help you in spreading the gospel? And besides, you might also have opportunity to nudge and/or lead some of them down a more reformed path. Bottom line: don't sacrifice doctrinal standards just to get along. That would be pragmatic. Take advantage of every opportunity to make inroads for the gospel. That's being a good steward of the mysteries of Christ.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 14, 2009)

Unfortunately, these types of Independents - which reject any type of associationism - won't be convinced.

However, most Independents accept various forms of associations for the sake of the Gospel. 

I think that for most Independents the acceptability of you "working alongside" LN denominations would depend upon what, precisely, you mean by "working alongside."


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 14, 2009)

I help train and mentor indigenous evangelists - almost all of them work with a church denomination in the country where I serve. 

Their statement of faith is basic but solid and it is a good church, with a variability of soundness among the individual congregations. The Gospel is going out form many of the churches among this denomination, but some churches are not preaching the truth. Through working for change from within, we have sent solid preachers to these churches when we have identified them to correct doctrine. 

Also, the national church as a body accepted calvinism as the Gospel...so I can work with this group without sacrificing my soteriology.

I try to include local Christians in every work that I do, and so this invovles me laboring closely beside this national network and I recruit, mobilize and train evangelists who are part of this denomiantion. There are no churches in the tribe where I am at, so we are shipping evangelists from this body to preach at the preaching posts in my broad area.


Most of my supporting churches accept asociations. There is a tinge of Landmarkism among some. Many think I know nothing of ecclesiology, but they do not realize that one never has a 100% ideal situation to work with overseas...or else, why would they need missionaries?

-----Added 6/14/2009 at 01:20:54 EST-----

I would like to explore baptist connectionalism more. I think broad efforts are good things within some doctrinal bounds, but I used the work "broad cooperation" in reference to a mission effort and this phrase hit one older pastor negatively as if I had slapped him. Maybe spiritual PTSD from the mid-50's ecumenism disaster?


----------



## Leslie (Jun 14, 2009)

I don't understand how the principle of independency became a sacred cow. On the basis of what scripture? Or is this tradition? Is tradition equal to scripture? How about Paul's analogy of our all being part of one body? That doesn't sound like independency.

We live and work under a national denomination--live on their compound and work as we see fit with their permission. They can veto anything we want to do but generally don't. We have major problems with the leadership and with the general ethics and with some of the preaching we've heard but feel they are part of the body of Christ by and large.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jun 14, 2009)

> -Can a missionary work alongside a national denomination?



Yes, if the denomination is close enough to the Scriptures to allow you to work without compromising the Gospel. 



> -If a missionary is working in a country and does not want to work alongside a national body of Christians, is it better than to bypass the local Christians and work on your own?



You are there for the body of Christ and the to spread the Gospel. Why not work with the locals? What better way to spread the Gospel than to work with the local believers? Isn't that what the example left to us by Paul and others in the NT? 



> -Am I violating my principle of independancy if I work with others on a hard field where 100% agreement is hard to find? Am I then a pragmatist who doesn't care about doctrine? How much does a missionary have to agree with indigenous believers or indigenous/national church bodies before I can work with them?



As someone has already asked what is independency? I don't see that in Scripture. 

When I worked as a missionary, the only believers we could find were in the denominations. We wouldn't work with one national denomination because they had long since abandoned Christ and the Gospel, but the other denomination was strong, and we worked alongside of them happily.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 14, 2009)

Some of my supporters would say that all mission work must go out from a local church and be accountable to it. Working for a denomination means that a local church loses its autonomy, which means that if I help spread the work of the denom. then I am helping to spread bad ecclesiology. 

These same supporters often have trouble beause I am not an independnat missionary (sent out without an org) but that I chose to go out with the help of an organization. Most of these would consider mission agencies to be parachurches and then would bash all parachurches.

p.s. the mission work that most of my supporting churches are invovled in is not very far away (mostly in Mexico) and it often involves transfer growth from an existing church that is not calvinistic and baptistic into churches that are.


----------



## Timothy William (Jun 14, 2009)

Pergy, I hope you don't take this in the wrong way, but if they are that strictly committed to independency, how could they support you in the first place? Wouldn't they only want to support a missionary sent solely by their own individual church? The simple fact that you are sent by more than one local church, and are not answerable solely to one congregation, implies at least some sort of connexionalism.


----------



## Cranmer1959 (Jun 14, 2009)

Church polity is irrelevant compared to the Gospel. The real question is whether or not the churches you are working with "officially" and "actually" adhere to a Reformed confession of faith which is strictly biblical and scriptural? In other words, are they preaching the law and the Gospel? Or perhaps they are compromising the Gospel somehow?

Charlie


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 14, 2009)

Timothy William said:


> Pergy, I hope you don't take this in the wrong way, but if they are that strictly committed to independency, how could they support you in the first place? Wouldn't they only want to support a missionary sent solely by their own individual church? The simple fact that you are sent by more than one local church, and are not answerable solely to one congregation, implies at least some sort of connexionalism.



That is a very good point... But remember, those supposedly radically-independent types of chuches don't typically demonstrate that degree of insight.


----------



## Cranmer1959 (Jun 14, 2009)

Personally, I could not in good conscience work with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Anglo-Catholics. That would be a compromise of the Gospel. 

I would not work with Arminians either even though I do not think they have completely lost the Gospel. However, their emphasis on "free will" above the doctrines of grace at least implies a semi-pelagianism which is on some level a compromise of the Gospel.

Charlie


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 14, 2009)

Cranmer1959 said:


> Church polity is irrelevant compared to the Gospel. The real question is whether or not the churches you are working with "officially" and "actually" adhere to a Reformed confession of faith which is strictly biblical and scriptural? In other words, are they preaching the law and the Gospel? Or perhaps they are compromising the Gospel somehow?
> 
> Charlie



Your are bringing up a side issue, we can start a new thread if you like. My home church here in Saint Louis does not "officially" adhere to a confession and they are a solid church that preaches along the 1689 lines. So, I think your assessment is wrong and confessionalism is not a silver bullet.

However, if by what you are saying you are advocating that the main thing is that the doctrine of the church denomination with whom I work must be solid, then I will say a hearty AMEN. They are not compromising the Gospel, but are solid, though in some parts of the province where I work the quality varies greatly (and due to being a denomination, I can report such deficiencies and get better preachers into the derelict churches, which I have done before when one particular church was not preaching the truth).






Here is a question: Does all missionary work have to have as its end product a local and autonomous church? Paul taught students at Tyranus, right? Jesus did not plant a local church, he did leadership training of his disciples so that they could build up The Church.


P.s. most of the men that give me grief over my "lack of solid ecclesiology" themselves where educated at Bible Colleges or seminaries not directly under a local church. Ironic.

-----Added 6/14/2009 at 03:45:38 EST-----



Cranmer1959 said:


> Personally, I could not in good conscience work with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Anglo-Catholics. That would be a compromise of the Gospel.
> 
> I would not work with Arminians either even though I do not think they have completely lost the Gospel. However, their emphasis on "free will" above the doctrines of grace at least implies a semi-pelagianism which is on some level a compromise of the Gospel.
> 
> Charlie



We are talking about working with Protestant evangelicals here, mostly calvinistic (the denomination just approved calvinism officially this year). I also could not work with those groups you mentioned.


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 14, 2009)

I am presuming that you are working along side a denomination that honors Christ? If so, if you _don't_ work along side the indigenous church how can you be following Christ's commandment to _make disciples_? How will new believers have any benefit of the means of grace if they are not added to a local congregation?


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 14, 2009)

I suppose I would either make the local evangelists become Sovereign Grace Baptist evangelists and make the churches become sovereign grace baptist churches. That might be the men's thinking. Otherwise, I see no way to make and incorporate disciples into an existing body of beleivers.


----------



## jambo (Jun 14, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> So my questions are these:
> 
> -Can a missionary work alongside a national denomination?
> 
> ...



One of the problems about coming from a place where there are a lot of Christians and different denominations is that they read the Great Commission in Mt 28.19 as the command to "Go and make baptists/presbyterians etc of all nations..." In places like the UK, and I would imagine the USA too, denominationalism is more important to some people and supporting churches than whether they are Christians or not. Yet on the mission field people are Christian first and foremost and baptist/presbyterian etc second. Indeed there is far more unity between different denominations on the mission field than there is in the sending country.

If churches don't want to support you because you are crossing denominational boundaries then they are not truly supporting you in the first place. Although you may be sorry to lose their support but the fact is their hearts are not really behind you.

I believe a missionary can work within national denominations. Whilst in the Irish Republic our church adhered to the 1689 confession. However as we were the only church in the town convinced presbyterians could have joined us as full members provided they accepted the practice of the church was believers baptism.

On the second point I believe a missionary must not work on his own. He should be working alongside the local church. Now I understand some missionaries are alone in pioneer situations but his work should be with a neighbouring church that is seeking to plant a church in his particular area. The goal should be to evangelise to gather converts and form a church. The missionary is there to teach and train local Christians to become elders and pastors and that local evangelism is done by the local believers. (And usually the most efective evangelists are the new local believers) The church can eventually become self sufficient and self supporting and forge links with other churches in the area whether within a denomination or as an association of indepent churches.

A lot of work has been ruined by arrogant missionaires doing their own thing and ignoring the local church and local Christians. Sometimes this is not the fault of the missionary but the policies of the sending agency. 

It is almost impossible to get 100% agreement even amongst 2 baptists! The essential truths must be agreed upon but side issues should remain side issues and not outgrow to the point of causing a hinderence.

The local Christians know the culure and the country better than the missionary. They may well have seen other missionaries come, make a hash of things and go leaving the local Chrisitans to pick up the pieces and face the consequences. The missionary may well have returned home to his western comforts quite oblivious to the upheaval he has laft behind. 

Granted there are times when local leaders may be weak and untaught but they should never be written off. 

I would forget about what home supporters think and ask myself can I in all conscience work with this local church? If yes then good and well. If no then a whole rethink is required about your location. 

Even within denominations there are some presbyterian churches I could work with and others within the same denomination I couldn't. There are some baptist churches I could work with and others I would not go anywhere near.

Regarding the two pastors wishing to correct your views. Simply invite them out work aongside you for 6 weeks and they may find their views are corrected.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 14, 2009)

THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!




If they respond that if I am a church planting than I ought to be planting solid churches (i.e. churches that have solid ecclesiology, meaning, in their case, independant autonomous baptist churches) what should be my response?

-----Added 6/14/2009 at 04:29:18 EST-----

I have told them that I am working under conditions as they exist, not ideal circumstances, and I sometimes get called a pragmatist.


----------



## jambo (Jun 14, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> If they respond that if I am a church planting than I ought to be planting solid churches (i.e. churches that have solid ecclesiology, meaning, in their case, independant autonomous baptist churches) what should be my response?
> 
> -----Added 6/14/2009 at 04:29:18 EST-----
> 
> I have told them that I am working under conditions as they exist, not ideal circumstances, and I sometimes get called a pragmatist.



You are called to plant the church. You may have your own ecclesiology but if the church is independant and autonomous then *the church decides *(not your supporting churches) whether it will remain independent or join some association.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 14, 2009)

Thanks again!!!!


I usually tell them that I am working parrallel and not under the national denomination. If the national denomination ever goes belly up into apostasy I will not work with them. For now, I work with them and help them to reach the rest of the province where I work and train their evengalists to plant churches in the lowlands. 

However, by virtue of doing this, I am spreading the work of this denomination across the province, when (if I had my ecclesiology right, I guess) I would be raising up and strengthening independant and autonomous sovereign grace local baptist churches.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 15, 2009)

I guess this might be less of an issue for presbyterians Maybe some of the calvy baptists are infected with Landmarkism.


----------

