Where, o where, should missionaries go?

[MarieP]

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

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

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

 

[Wannabee]

Dear Brad,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Phil D.]

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen!
Phil D.

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

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

 

[Wannabee]

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

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

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

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

Have a blessed Lord's Day,

 

[kvanlaan]

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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.

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

Back to the OP: "Where should missionaries go"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Skyler]

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

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

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

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

 

[Jesus is my friend]

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

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

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

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

 

[Wannabee]

Wannabee found Pergamum's post helpful.

Back to the OP: "Where should missionaries go"

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

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

 

[FenderPriest]

Re the OP: "Where should missionaries go?"

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

 

[MarieP]

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

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

 

[MarieP]

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

 

[Phil D.]

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

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

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

 

[Phil D.]

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

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

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

 

[Phil D.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pax

 

[Wannabee]

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

Look at that statement as it stands alone.

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

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

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



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


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

But back to the OP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

Brad, I see your point.

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

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


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

 

[jgrant1118]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

Brad, thank you for your musings.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Rom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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