Evangelical churches are supposed to be the most missionary-minded of all churches. They give well to missionary endeavour, send out workers to work in the harvest field of the world, pray for missionaries and support their work.
But charity begins at home – at least that’s what we have been told! Why is it then that evangelical churches prefer the foreign mission work to the mission field that is right on their doorsteps? Is it because there is more kudos, more romance, more spiritual brownie points, with the overseas work than there is with more locally-based mission?
Let me give an example of what I mean. Suppose there are two really thriving evangelical congregations with an admirable missionary interest and track record that are located beside two small struggling congregations within the same denomination. Imagine the prestige associated with the bigger congregations, and the spiritual poverty of the two smaller ones. This is nothing other than a mission-field on the very doorstep, but no one wants to even admit it is there! They send their money and their personnel to fields far away, but would never even consider sending their best people to join these two struggling and neighbouring congregations, or even re-aligning the congregational unions so that the stronger could help the weaker – a Presbyterian principle.
Why this neglect? Is it because there are too many exaggerated egos in the big churches to care for the smaller ones? Do the bigger churches prefer to be “as ease in Zion,” as Amos put it, rather than get their hands dirty trying to build up and strengthen the weaker churches? Is personal comfort to be preferred to the arduous task of spreading the everlasting Gospel amongst needy people? Or is the spread of the Gospel not that important after all?
4 comments:
Like your post: mission must include Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the uttermost parts of the world. I think generally we just don't care enough for those without Christ and subconsciously slip into the notion 'if they are elect God will find a means to save them': Christ died died to save the lost and the early saints such as Paul and Peter also paid with their own lives.Are we willing to do the same?
Hi Andrew
Sorry for the delay in responding to your comment. The Christian church today is big into personal empire building, but not so big into building the Kingdom of God.
There is much evangelical and evangelistic rhetoric, but this does not always translate on to the ground. Comfort zones call much more loudly than the cries of the perishing around our doors.
Oh yes, we're big into evangelising India or Thailand or Africa, and even the Republic of Ireland has a sexiness about it.
But don't ask us to take under our wing the poor struggling lost in our back yard! The NIMBY syndrome comes to mind here.
You are quite correct when you point to hyper-Calvinism being a great obstacle to true and real evangelism. Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones urged most strongly reformed ministers to flee from this perversion of Calvin's evangelistic theology. How right he was, and how wrong are the many who claim to follow his teaching! Dr Thomas Chalmers did likewise, and we know that Jonathon Edwards, Richard Baxter, J C Ryle at al did their best to point Christians in the right way.
Keep up the good work, Andrew. Men like you are needed especially when it comes to teaching and training young evangelists for the future.
Sorry Andrew, that last comment was from me.
Post a Comment