Missions - What Would You Do?

[thbslawson]

Here's a hypothetical situation that's actually based on a lot of common real life events we and others have encountered in mission work

You as a Reformed/Calvinistic missionary are sent to a remote place to share the gospel with a particular people group. When you arrive to your surprise you find that there is already a Christian presence because of some missionary contact years earlier. There is somewhat of a local leader/pastor and a small congregation. They have some Bibles and are loosely organized as a "church" Fundamentally they believe...

-Salvation by faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone
-The inerrancy and absolute authority of Scripture
-Other fundamental doctrines (Trinity, virgin birth, literal death burial and resurrection)

They also believe some things that you, as a Presbyterian/Reformed Baptist do NOT believe...

-A woman helps lead the service, and while not formally "preaching" does offer Scriptural insights during the service
-Almost completely Arminian in doctrine
-Possible belief in continuation of gifts
-No Biblical form of church government present

The "pastor" clearly loves the Lord, loves God's word and is teachable. Based on this circumstance please choose the option that best fits what you would do. Feel free to offer other options or elaborate on the ones listed here.

1. Return home and let the situation be.

2. Continue with your previous plans and continue to plant your own church, with little or no contact with the existing congregation.

3. Correct the pastor's theological error quickly and attempt to reform the church.

4. Work with the pastor and attempt to gradually influence his understanding of Scripture along more Biblical lines.

 

[Tim]

Here is a Biblical model for such situations:

Act 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Act 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

This can be the starting point for our discussion, which I think would most likely address options 3 and 4.

 

[J. Dean]

I agree with Tim. You can politely contradict a brother in Christ that is in error without labeling him as a heretic.

 

[Covenant Joel]

If you've been called by God, such has been confirmed by Presbytery, and you have thusly been commissioned to go and share the biblical Gospel with this people (which is well-articulated in the Westminster Standards) then, by all lawful means, do your duty until such a time as your sending Presbytery deems it no longer your duty.

The question is what "your duty" entails, particularly in relation to the options presented in the OP. Doing your duty may sound simple, but it's far from it oftentimes in such situations.

 

[Jash Comstock]

As always, I think the first response to a situation like this would be deep and laborious prayer, for wisdom, for the errant pastor, for humility, and for graciousness in addressing the grievances. Second, if one continues to look over the situation just because the pastor "loves Jesus" they are doing a more grievous wrong than the errant teacher, because as James 4:17 says, "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." To overlook false teaching is to participate in it. Finally, it must always be remembered that it is the Spirit who convicts of truth, not rhetoric or logic. In confronting these errors, one must be gentle, gracious, and kind; but also rely on the Spirit to go ahead of you and work truth in those who truly believe.

 

[Covenant Joel]

Which is precisely why the definition of such duty should be debated, discussed, and declared by sessions of elders at Presbytery (which was my point). Not that it's not free to be discussed here, but I wanted to input that as my , and maybe change is warranted me.

I see your point a little more clearly now. I didn't gather that from your previous post. Though realistically, people on the other side of the world may or not understand the local situation so as to determine the exact nature of that duty.

 

[Rich Koster]

How about this hybrid of your 4 posted choices: Continue with your previous plans and continue to plant your own church, and attempt to work with the pastor where conflict of conscience would not be a problem, and attempt to gradually influence his understanding of Scripture along more Biblical lines, and hopefully assist in reforming the existing congregation.

 

[Jack K]

The errors described are not so serious as to make the existing church one that must be opposed. It is a true church, Christ's church. Your stance toward it must be one of encouraging it, building it up and fighting alongside it. You may not take a stance of fighting against it any more than you may take a stance of fighting against Christ.

So I don't think ignoring it and starting a competing church outright (#2) is an option. You might try to come alongside the exisiting church at first and eventually decide separate churches are better than trying to work together, but you shouldn't just disregard the existing church from the start.

Going home and starting over (#1) might be an option if the situation was not what you expected and trained for. But it isn't very helpful.

That leaves us somewhere in the middle of options #3 and #4, and I lean more in the #4 direction. Gradual and humble influence usually works better (and demonstartes better character) than barreling in and insisting on changes up front. Honest discussion of differences up front is probably good, but a willingness to also try to work alongside brothers you somewhat disagree with is respectful, loving Christian character and a good attitude for a missionary. Limit your "I can't in good conscience participate in that" responses to those issues that matter most.

Pick your battles. Of the errors mentioned, the Arminian mindset is most damaging to a clear proclamation of the gospel. Address that first.

 

[JoannaV]

I second Jack. I just wanted to add that the response of the pastor to your arrival will be an important initial factor. Maybe he will be happy that you have come and desirous to learn from you. Or maybe he'll insist you go start a church in the next town.

 

[Zach]

I agree wholeheartedly with Jack. In addition to the points he raises, you also don't want to further divide the local population. So, I would strive alongside and through the existing Mission so long as it continues to preach the good news of Jesus received by faith alone.

 

[Edward]

Which is precisely why the definition of such duty should be debated, discussed, and declared by sessions of elders at Presbytery (which was my point).

In the hypothetical, it appears that the sending body didn't do its homework. So, depending on communications, the missionary would either need to abandon the field for consultation, or suspend the work while the sending body debated what should be done and could communicate it to the missionary.

Or they could have picked a man that they could trust to implement their wishes as he determines the circumstances dictate, subject to guidance and direction as the facts become known.

I'd do 4, with a touch of 3, and communicate back to the sending agency that we were years ahead of where we expected to be at this point.

 

[thbslawson]

I greatly appreciate all of the responses. Zack makes a good point. A lot is going to be based upon the reaction of the pastor, if he's open or not, and it may take a while to build trust and friendship to a point where your teaching will be received.

Now let me through another hypothetical. Would you send a missionary or go as a missionary to a place where you ALREADY knew there was such a pastor and church hoping to maybe be a catalyst for better theology and reform? The idea is, you know that some work was done before by non-reformed missionaries, possibly poorly, but the native church that is there is kind of chugging along needing some guidance. Would you send/go in hopes of helping reform and strengthen such a church?

 

[Unoriginalname]

I truly do not mean to sound demeaning or accusatory.

I cannot see why it would be a bad thing to send a missionary to an area that has exposure to some subpar theology. We do it all the time stateside. There are plenty of areas that have churches, that still see new churches planted. I do not know why proper doctrine should be considered a bonus when it comes to missions. I feel that establishing churches with proper preaching simply aids in completing the second half of the great commission. Missions work is more than a numbers games. Finally if the only Christian witness in an area is a poor one, it will be that poor church that will train the next generation of ministers to that region. A proper church should help to safeguard for generations.

 

[Pergamum]

I haven't much time, but the question in the OP is an EXCELLENT one and is far from a mere hypothetical one, but describes many places in the world. Here are some quick and general principles:


-I'd rather have presbyterian/baptist neighbors than Muslim neighbors.

-In a condition of spiritual isolation, I'd rather be blessed by a presbyterian/baptist preacher and help him and pray for him rather than "do my own thing" or isolate myself.

-I want to see the broad flag of Christ flown, not necessarily only my own particular denomination's or church's flag.

- I am out to find The Good Shepherd's Sheep, not steal other's sheep and so, if in a city of one millions hindus, care should be taken so that you don't plant a church a mere kilometer away from other evangelical or reformed missionaries. In the past, mission agencies had "comity agreements" which helped in this area.

-As a missionary you are a guest in another country. Care should be taken to build up ALL believers, if they are believers, indeed, and to respect all reasonable requests.

-We should pick our battles and prioritize Gospel issues over ecclesiological or secondary issues.

-If in a very unreached region, where God has raised up indigenous church structures, we should honor those structures as much as possible and seek not to bypass or compete with them.

-Missionaries should respect local church leaders. A relationship must exist prior before someone can bear or receive criticism or benefit from your teaching sometimes. A missionary would do well to, in general, keep mostly quiet his or her first year or two on the field and be a learner and observer.


A few examples:

-A colleague of mine trains Chinese pastors. When women pastors come to him, he spends his time training them instead of rejecting them from training.

-I know presbyterian missionaries who have planted baptistic churches and vice versa, too. I would still call these church plants successes.

-I know one sovereign grace baptist King James Only missionary who brags on planting 17 churches. Upon closer inspection he pulls those identified as christians out of their existing church structure, aligned with the southern baptists, and forms his own sovereign grace baptist churches. He claims that they were deficient in their knowledge of the true Gospel, but I often wonder. There is a difference between church-planting and church-transplanting...

-Right now I work with an evangelical tribal church structure. They are not doing a good job reaching out to another needy people-group due to skin-color and economic differences. I support outreaches to this unreached group from both within and from without this indigenous church structure (I want to honor the church structure, but I also want these people reached).

 

[thbslawson]

Pergamum,

The "hypothetical" situation is actually a combination a number of circumstances we personally have faced. In a country like Russia where less than 1% professes to be Bible-believing Christians, we've been faced with circumstances where the semi-Charismatic, semi-egalitarian pastor is the only game for 500 miles. In those types of areas we look for...

-Belief in the true gospel
-Love for Christ and his word, willingness to learn
-A desire for help in ministry

If these three factors are in place, I've learned to "cringe with love". With patience, love, trust and friendship God has opened many doors to help steer the theology of pastors in a more Biblical direction and at the same time teach me some things about humility and faith. For certain, none of them have become full-fledged reformed theologians, but we did see an Arminian pastor come to believe in God's absolute sovereignty in salvation, and one church actually discontinue ordaining women decons.

In my humble opinion, I think there's a need for this type of mission work, to help new, young churches that may be the only gospel witness in a particular area, grow and better understand the Word, but it's going to require patience and much "cringing with love". One of the problems I face though is an unwillingness of some of my Presbyterian brethren to support this type of work. Some feel that I shouldn't be doing much else than planting Presbyterian churches, which I feel is unfortunate.

---------- Post added at 03:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 AM ----------

Pergamum,

The "hypothetical" situation is actually a combination a number of circumstances we personally have faced. In a country like Russia where less than 1% professes to be Bible-believing Christians, we've been faced with circumstances where the semi-Charismatic, semi-egalitarian pastor is the only game for 500 miles. In those types of areas we look for...

-Belief in the true gospel
-Love for Christ and his word, willingness to learn
-A desire for help in ministry

If these three factors are in place, I've learned to "cringe with love". With patience, love, trust and friendship God has opened many doors to help steer the theology of pastors in a more Biblical direction and at the same time teach me some things about humility and faith. For certain, none of them have become full-fledged reformed theologians, but we did see an Arminian pastor come to believe in God's absolute sovereignty in salvation, and one church actually discontinue ordaining women decons.

In my humble opinion, I think there's a need for this type of mission work, to help new, young churches that may be the only gospel witness in a particular area, grow and better understand the Word, but it's going to require patience and much "cringing with love". One of the problems I face though is an unwillingness of some of my Presbyterian brethren to support this type of work. Some feel that I shouldn't be doing much else than planting Presbyterian churches, which I feel is unfortunate.

 

[Pergamum]

I like that phrase, "cringe with love."

I have received some criticisms for working too broadly as well, but my policy is that I will preach anywhere - especially the unsound churches, if by preaching I am not endorsing their belief but can preach according to my own beliefs.

Support of other programs, etc, I try to limit to those whom I can endorse (discipleship programs, scholarships, seminars, etc).

I have invited several pastors out and, once they saw the situation on the ground, they became more aware of my context and supportive of my philosophy of ministry.

Maybe you should invite your biggest critics out for a short-term trip to see and to preach, huh?

 

[thbslawson]

Maybe you should invite your biggest critics out for a short-term trip to see and to preach, huh?

Sounds like an excellent idea!