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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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 ----------

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 ----------

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.]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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 ----------

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.

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