# Anyone Heard Of Village Missions?



## servantofmosthigh (Jun 18, 2008)

A friend of mine, who's an elder, informed me that during the last elders' meeting, the senior pastor presented Village Missions (Village Missions - Keeping Country Churches Alive) for church support. He asked me if I've ever heard of it, which I never had. So, I thought of circulating this organization here to see if anyone knows anything about this ministry - good or bad.

He's just wondering, as I am, if this is a worthy ministry for the church to consider supporting or not.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 18, 2008)

Joe Johnson has some knowledge of this organisation. I'm sure he'll notice this thread and give his input.


----------



## servantofmosthigh (Jun 18, 2008)

JonathanHunt said:


> Joe Johnson has some knowledge of this organisation. I'm sure he'll notice this thread and give his input.



If you see him, can you flag this posting for me to him. It doesn't seem too many people have yet responded on this.

Thanks.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 18, 2008)

servantofmosthigh said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Johnson has some knowledge of this organisation. I'm sure he'll notice this thread and give his input.
> ...



I sent him a message for him to notice this thread.


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 18, 2008)

Thanks Randy.


Hi Will,

I'll share what I can, but not in a public forum. I'll PM you, and if this goes to a private forum then I will make some brief comments.

Blessings
Joe


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 18, 2008)

Sorry, but I would not see something like this as a giving priority.


Because I am being a party-pooper, I will give my reasons:


-If this support money is to come from a missions budget, something in Asia or anywhere where lack of linguistic and geographical access to the Gospel is present should be prioritized. Moribund country churches in rural America are not a #1 priority. 

-Even if we consider the whole world a "mission field" I would prioritize other geographical areas in the world as having much higher priority for mission funding than rural america.

-Even in American, rural America is overall more God-fearing than inner-cities. Even if one gave to "North American missions" and insisted that America was still a worthy mission field to spend one's mission budget on, then why prioritize rural America versus urban America. Urban America is much more needy. City churches are a greater need.

-Also, the website says "denominational issues are avoided." While I would support a statement like this perhaps in the Middle East where I am glad for any Gospel teaching, I cannot support a statement like this in America, where many choices abound. 

-It appears that this group is focused on buildings. Keeping churches alive means to keep buildings open it sounds like perhaps. Many reformed groups consist of 6-8 families in a private living room for worship. This is proff that a solid church is not building-dependant. One does not need financial assistance to keep a quaint old rural building open. 

-It might be better for some of these old country churches to die out. Many are havens of a cultural Christianity with no solid Gospel teaching. Let'em close.

-Their doctrinal statement on the Atonement says that Christ died as a propitiation for the sins of the "whole world." It appears that they mean this as every single person instead of both Jew and Gentile.




Sorry if I am opinionated on this issue, but please if you have a missions budget please prioritize those areas that are neediest in the world and not a North American non-denominational effort to keep moribund churches alive. 

The country where I am at has 127 unreached people groups even without counting my immediate province which has 200 groups without Scripture. 

The Middle East and over parts of SE Asia has cities of multiple millions and no documented beleivers. I know of several people groups that do not have a single beleiver. 

I believe we ought to prioritize these neediest places and to use a church's missions budget for an effort like village missions would be a poor stewardship.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 19, 2008)

Without speaking to the specifics of this particular group, I agree that there is a great need for city churches. But there are many rural areas where there is no sound church as well.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 19, 2008)

There are needs everywhere, but given limited people open to filling all the needs and limited funds available, a prioritization needs to take place - and rural American churches are a low priority compared to other needy segments.


----------



## servantofmosthigh (Jun 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Sorry, but I would not see something like this as a giving priority.
> 
> Because I am being a party-pooper, I will give my reasons:
> 
> ...



The reason why my friend's church has been presented with this ministry by the senior pastor is because the senior pastor's son has been recently selected by Village Missions to pastor a rural church.

As for your passion for international missions, I applaud you for that, but I do want to caution that the passion should be tempered to avoid contempt against home missions. And neither home missions nor international missions have any more priority over the other in terms of spiritual neediness. And moribund rural churches have just as much spiritual need for reformation and revival as urban churches and international missions. The Gospel needs to be shared with all people everywhere, and it is not our place to determine where the Gospel should go and where it shouldn't go. Yes, please promote your work where you are at and communicate the desperate Gospel needs for prayer and support. But not at the cost of diminishing someone else's calling to minister in no less an important field where the Gospel is just as needed.

Press on, brother. Be not discouraged because the laborers are so few when the work is overwhelming. But be encouraged that the Lord is already victorious, the Church is already victorious, and the Gospel is already victorious. And be encouraged that your labors are no less needy, valued or loved by the Lord than someone else's ministry. Nor look at someone else's miinstry as being less needy, valued or loved by the Lord than yours.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 19, 2008)

I truly believe that we can objectively prioritize some "mission fields" over others. Sorry if you were offended but I see the USA as a low priority based upon the criteria that I see.


If we do not prioritize fields of service we could never say that Istanbul Turkey had greater needs than Atlanta Georgia.

You WOULD agree that you would rather see - all other things being equal - 100 missionaries go to Istanbul rather than Atlanta Georgia, wouldn't you?


I do not have a contempt for home missions, but there is rarely a spot in the USA that is not covered by Christian radio, Bibles in motel rooms, and churches in every town. The barriers of language and geography are nil.

Yes, Americans are spiritually starved too, but not like those in a famine. They are spiritual anorexics that vomit out any opportunities and will not even cross a short distance to hear the truth. In many places in the world there is no Gospel bread at all.




So, I am glad that this man feels called to help rural churches. One cannot argue with a personal calling. However, since the question was asked whether or not one would support this ministry, I would say no, and I gave my reasons.

P.s. my priorities of evangelization are only one reason. The website of Village Missions also has other troubling aspects, such as their non-denominatioanl stance (within the US where there are plenty of choices) and their statement that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. What are the standards of the pastors of Village Missions? If there a guarantee that they are promoting the truth? Aside from the fact that it is inside the US, there are other big questions I have about this group.


P.S. this isn't about me thinking my place of service is more valuable. But I do want to push the fact that there is an unequal distribution of Christian workers throughout the world.



Finally, paise God that this man is about to enter upon a field of service. Yes, there are needs everywhere and I am glad he is called by the Lord to help.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I truly believe that we can objectively prioritize some "mission fields" over others. Sorry if you were offended but I see the USA as a low priority based upon the criteria that I see.
> 
> 
> If we do not prioritize fields of service we could never say that Istanbul Turkey had greater needs than Atlanta Georgia.
> ...



Not necessarily. On what Biblical grounds would you argue that you'd prefer to send them to Istanbul?

Consider 100 unsaved people in Istanbul, and 100 unsaved people in Atlanta. Which are more valuable to evangelize?



> I do not have a contempt for home missions, but there is rarely a spot in the USA that is not covered by Christian radio, Bibles in motel rooms, and churches in every town. The barriers of language and geography are nil.



Language and geography are hardly the most important barriers to consider.



> Yes, Americans are spiritually starved too, but not like those in a famine.



But if each is spiritually starved, each equally damned, then why is there a priority to evangelize one and not the other?



> P.S. this isn't about me thinking my place of service is more valuable.



But you are doing so to a degree - you're saying that priority needs to be shifted from saving the unsaved people in one part of the world to saving them in the other (where you are). You're working in what you consider the 'high priority' area - if value isn't attached to the words 'high priority' then you are defining priority in a way that I don't understand. 



> But I do want to push the fact that there is an unequal distribution of Christian workers throughout the world.



Perhaps it has been a long time since you have been in the US, and in particular parts of the US (like the inner city, and rural America) in which there is an extreme dearth of Christian workers. The US isn't as uniformly populated with sound purveyors of the Gospel as you think it is.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 19, 2008)

Todd


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jun 19, 2008)

Pergy, I agree with you on that particular website and it's issues. I must say that I disagree with you on "prioritising". The reason is this: not all are called to foreign missions. There are those that are called to urban/rural missions. You would be amazed at the amount of spiritual darkness that is creeping across our land. Even cultural Christianity is dying out...actually opening the way for these types of missions. We once lived in an area where the only churches available were mennonite and a type of LDS...and the mennonite churches were very closed off. Others traveled to cultural Christian baptist churches. In the city, regardless of how many churches are on the corners, there are those that need someone to go to them on the streets first. Want to talk about foreign...there are many needs on the street that are foreign to most of America.

Instead of "prioritising", I would rather suggest that one put their abilities to where they are able and their givings to where they feel called to give them. Some will be called to supporting foreign missions, some will be called to support Bible translators, some will be called to support those that are going into crack neighbourhoods and attending to the people that live on the streets of America.


As Todd pointed out, there is a dearth of workers here in the US. It's amazing, how many are unwilling to put anything towards their closest neighbours, but will budget in foreign missions.


I don't say any of this lightly, Pergy. I'm one that used to dream of foreign missions. However, the Lord placed my husband in inner city ministry for a time.


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 19, 2008)

There have been many good comments here in regard to missions, ministry and calling. We all answer individually to God for honoring Him within the sphere of influence He entrusts to our care/stewardship. That cannot be diminished in any way by numbers. God's economy isn't based on numbers, but on faithfulness. We must not think like the pragmatists. We must seek Christ first and serve where He sees fit to use us.

My first choice for ministry was foreign missions. However, it became clear through events, health and other providences that we were not going at this time. My calling to this church isn't any less sure simply because only 18 voted when I candidated though. The need isn't diminished because there are "churches" (buildings) throughout the area. Before speaking to me, they had interviewed several men who they thought were qualified. But these men did not want to come because of the size of the church and sparse population (not to mention the weather). Qualified men, within a broad spectrum we'll call reformed, are focused on salary, advance, promotion, security, comfort and notoriety to the point of no longer having a vision to take on the hard things in the hard places, unless it will gain them status in the eyes of men. Simply put, our seminaries and churches are churning out spoiled, soft wimps who don't want to get their hands dirty, think they need huge salaries with benefits to merely provide for their families and see themselves rather than Christ as the end all. I asked one young man who was looking for a place to learn and grow in ministry if he would be interested in joining us. With little experience and no education, he stated that he needed a full time position that paid XXXXX dollars because he has a wife and children to provide for. Heh, I'm not making 2/3 of what he said he "needed." 

On the side of the need for clear biblical teaching, I spoke with an older gentleman just the other day who goes to what may be the largest church in the area (considered reasonably sound by most people). We debated on whether or not one can lose their salvation. Works righteousness abominations of the RCC plague this area. The Bible belt is plagued with the worst of easy believism, damning people to hell with a worthless promise. We must not think that the absence of the Word of God is the only measure of a need for Gospel preaching. The dearth of true slaves of Christ in our land is clear evidence of a need, and the fact that there are many hirelings and few true shepherds.

Finally, consider Jesus. Did He go to a place where there was no Scriptural testimony? If He had then He would have likely gone to the Americas or perhaps Australia. But instead He went to the place where there was the greatest availability of truth. He went into the heart of the presence of God's Word, where many knew what was taught and memorized vast portions of Scripture. He went to the place where the teaching of God's Word had been conformed to the philosophies of men, turning the covenant into a system of shackles and chains that condemned men rather than saving them. Sounds a lot like today's America to me.

Having said that, if a man said he wanted to be a missionary and asked me where I thought he should go, I would tell him to find the deepest hole of humanity that is furthest from any Gospel witness, whether it held 10 men or 10 million. 

In regard to Village Missions, I'll let the director speak on this.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 19, 2008)

Okay, throw out my words on prioritizing. I still think I am right and priorities can and should be formed, but let's throw it out since it is clouding the waters.

If I throw out the prioritization argument I still have reservations about Village Missions.

Why not try to plant a Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian church (depending on your background) instead of joining with Village Mission?


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 19, 2008)

Hmmm...is predestination a hobby horse?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jun 19, 2008)

I think we would agree with that, Pergy


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 19, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I truly believe that we can objectively prioritize some "mission fields" over others. Sorry if you were offended but I see the USA as a low priority based upon the criteria that I see.
> ...







Todd,


We can start another thread on prioritization if you would like. 

Language, and geography are key items of importance because of the issue of access. English speakers who can read English have more access than many who have no Bible in their language.

If I dug a little deeper with you I am sure you would admit some sort of prioritization as well. If a city already had 3 reformed churches you would rather see a church planted in a city that had none, right? 

All unsaved are damned and all souls have equal value, but all works and all strategies don't have equal priority - and getting the Bible into a language or creating a vehicle to reach a people-group that have previously NEVER had Gospel exposure has greater priority than opening the 20th church in City X in America.


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Why not try to plant a Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian church (depending on your background) instead of joining with Village Mission?



Absolutely! In many of these places it would be wonderful if a church, or group of churches, supported the work and kept it going as a mission work, subsidized by locals as much as possible.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 19, 2008)

Both the foreign mission field and the home mission field are white for harvest. There are great needs in both places. As Pergy has pointed out, the nature of the need is different with those with no Bible in their language, etc. Also keep in mind the numbers of immigrants to the USA. As one pastor told me once, it's almost like having a foreign mission field here in our midst.


----------



## servantofmosthigh (Jun 19, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Both the foreign mission field and the home mission field are white for harvest. There are great needs in both places. As Pergy has pointed out, the nature of the need is different with those with no Bible in their language, etc. Also keep in mind the numbers of immigrants to the USA. As one pastor told me once, it's almost like having a foreign mission field here in our midst.



One point of clarification: the symantical term, "_foreign_ mission field," should no longer be in our vocabulary today. The definition of "foreign" is _"strange"_ or _"unfamiliar."_ It is a term based on historic England missionaries who went to _"foreign"_ lands _strange and unfamiliar_ to them. Additionally, calling someone a "foreigner" contains the same definition with it. With America today being widely diverse, people, cultures and countries are not "foreign" anymore. _(Accept maybe when visiting my extended family. They sure are foreign to me.)_ Instead, the term we use today is "international." Companies are international, not foreign. People are international, not foreign. Thus, the SBC had changed their _Foreign_ Missions Board into _International_ Missions Board.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 19, 2008)

Hmmm...good points Chris and Will.


----------

