========================================================================
  AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONS
  by Harold R. Cook
========================================================================

Cook's systematic introduction to missiology, providing a comprehensive overview
of the history, theology, methods, and challenges of Christian missionary work
around the world.

  Chapters: 28

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 01 - Three Basic Questions
    2. 02 - The New Testament and Missions
    3. 03 - The New Testament and Missions (Continued)
    4. 04 - The New Testament and Missions (Concluded)
    5. 05 - The Old Testament and Missions
    6. 06 - The Old Testament and Missions (Continued)
    7. 07 - Motives and Aims of Missions
    8. 08 - Whose Responsibility
    9. 09 - The Christian's Responsibility - the Missionary Call
   10. 10 - The Missionary Call - Testimonies
   11. 11 - Missionary Qualifications - Essential
   12. 12 - Missionary Qualifications (Continued)
   13. 13 - Missionary Qualifications (Concluded)
   14. 14 - Missionary Preparation
   15. 15 - Missionary Preparation (Continued)
   16. 16 - Mission Boards - Why Mission Boards?
   17. 17 - Mission Boards (Continued)
   18. 18 - How to Choose a Mission
   19. 19 - Independent Missions
   20. 20 - What a Missionary Does
   21. 21 - What a Missionary Does (Continued)
   22. 22 - What a Missionary Does (Concluded)
   23. 23 - A Church Missionary Program
   24. 24 - A Church Missionary Program (Continued)
   25. 25 - A Church Missionary Program (Continued)
   26. 26 - A Church Missionary Program (Continued)
   27. 27 - A Church Missionary Program (Continued)
   28. 28 - A Church Missionary Program (Concluded)

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 01 - THREE BASIC QUESTIONS
========================================================================

CHAPTER ONE THREE BASIC QUESTIONS

WHAT PICTURE comes into your mind when people talk about missions? Is it a
vision of a man in shorts and sun helmet talking to a bunch of naked savages?
That’s what it is to many people. And we can’t blame them. What if it isn’t a
true picture of most missionary work? After all, it is hard to put missions into
a picture. And maybe that picture can serve as well as any other to tell the
story of Christian missions.

What story does the picture tell you? You know, we often say that “a picture is
worth a thousand words,” and “good pictures tell the story.” But really a
picture tells a different story to everyone who looks at it. It depends on our
background and experience. The picture of a mountain lake attracts the artist
for its beauty. The fisherman sees it, and right away he wonders how the fishing
would be there. But there may be a parent who shudders when he sees it. He
remembers a son who was drowned trying to swim in the frigid waters of such a
lake. The story is in the viewer as much as in the picture.

What story, then, does your vision of the missionary tell you? Why is he there?
What is he talking about? Would you like to be in his shoes? Or do you think the
whole thing is rather silly and presumptuous? Does the strangeness of the scene
attract you? the romance? Or are you looking below the surface? What is your
idea of missions?

Now let me give you mine. No, I ought rather to say, let me give you the view of
the man in the picture, the missionary. What does he think about it? What does
missions mean to him? And to that basic question let’s add a couple of others
that need to be answered. What is the difference between “home” missions and
“foreign” missions? And why do some people oppose missions?

WHAT DOES MISSIONS MEAN? To the Christian missionary and those who send him out,
missions is the Christian Church trying to win others to the Christian faith,
especially through a group of selected workers called missionaries. This is the
definition; now let’s look at it in detail.

First, we have said that missions is a job of the Christian Church. We’re not
talking here about denominations or local Churches. We’re talking about the
great body of believers in CHRIST who make up His Church. Missions can never be
just a private affair. It always involves the Church. That’s true even of those
that we call “independent missionaries.” They may be independent of any mission
society on the field, but they almost always are sent out by one or more groups
of Christians in the homeland. Besides, they always think of themselves as
carrying out a task that was given to the whole Church.

Second, we have said that missions is the Christian Church trying to win others.
In other words, missions calls for deliberate effort. Some people do come into
the Christian faith without any person’s trying to win them. But they are not
often counted as the fruit of missions. In this missions is like selling. You
are not a salesman when you simply hand over an item the customer asks for and
take his money. You are just a clerk. In the same way, missions is not simply
making the Christian gospel available. It’s not just saying, “Here it is; you
can have it if you want it,” It means a job of selling, getting people to want
it enough to pay the price to get it.

Third, in missions the Church is trying to win others to the Christian faith.
Here’s where we’ll find some who disagree with our definition. For this means
first of all evangelism. But evangelism to the Christian is proselytism to the
anti-Christian. He looks at it as a sort of “sheepstealing.” For example, there
are non-Christian countries today, such as India, who would like to have many of
the social services of Christian missions like doctors and hospitals. But they
object to evangelism. They don’t want the people to be converted to the
Christian faith. And this is quite understandable. What is harder to understand
is those Christians who try to separate the two things. They seem like those who
try to help a famished people by giving them food, but neglect to give them
seed. The food will help for the present moment, but that’s all. Or can it be
that they don’t see the close connection between the Hindu religion and the
pitiful condition of so many of the people? But we don’t need to take time to
discuss these objections. Without a doubt, Christian missions in the minds of
most people means an attempt to spread the Christian faith. It is the only view
supported by the Christian Scriptures.

Fourth, the work of missions is normally carried on through a group of selected
workers called missionaries. True, there is a vast amount of missionary work
carried on voluntarily by members of the Christian Church. But they don’t often
think of themselves as missionaries. They are just personal witnesses to the
transforming power of the Gospel of CHRIST. The work of missions could hardly be
carried on without the aid of these voluntary workers. Yet when we speak of
missions we almost always think in terms of full-time missionaries.

Notice the word selected. For the purpose of our definition the method of
selection is not important. The fact is, even those who argue against the
careful choosing of missionaries by a mission board do set up their own
standards of selection. Maybe they will simply insist that the missionary be
sure that GOD is calling him to the work. But added to that he will have to be
able to persuade a number of Christians to provide his support. The important
thing is that in one way or another missionaries are selected workers, selected
for the job of missions. And to a large extent the success of missions depends
on the wisdom with which they are chosen.

”HOME” AND “FOREIGN” MISSIONS

Perhaps you noticed in our definition that we didn’t make any distinction
between “home missions” and “foreign missions.” There is a good reason for it.
We don’t find any such distinction in the Scriptures. Really they are just two
different phases of the same task. The different denominations don’t even agree
on where home missions ends and foreign missions begins. At least two or three
of them carry on their missionary work in Mexico and Central America under a
home missions board. Others look at it as a part of foreign missions. But we’re
not ready to give up the distinction altogether. Maybe it isn’t basic, and we
can’t find a clear pattern for it in the Scriptures; but it’s not contrary to
Scripture, and it is practical. It has its real values. Business houses take
notice of those values when they have many customers abroad.

They usually set up a separate “export division” to take care of the foreign
trade. Why? Simply because it brings up a lot of problems that are not found in
the home market. In the same way foreign missions faces many problems not met at
home. Let’s define home missions simply as missions carried on within the
national boundaries. Then we can see how it is so. For instance, at home we
don’t often have the problem of a different language. Nearly everybody speaks
English. There are some differences in the manner of living of the people, but
it is remarkable how much similarity you will find all the way from California
to New York. So we don’t have much problem of adjustment there.

We don’t have the problems with the government that missionaries face in other
lands. We know how to live in this climate, and almost everywhere we have access
to good doctors and dentists.

We can even use older people as missionaries. It doesn’t cost so much to put
them on the field at home, so if their term of service is short it doesn’t mean
such a big loss as it would abroad. And finally, we don’t have such serious
problems of starting a Church and helping people to find their place in it. So
the distinction between home and foreign missions is a practical one. Foreign
missions calls for missionaries with different qualifications from those at
home. They will have to use different methods of work. The range of their
activities will often be much broader. Their spirit and their message will be
the same, but to be effective they will have to learn and follow different rules
of practice. This is why in these lessons we are going to deal chiefly with
foreign missions. To try to deal with both at the same time would in many cases
lead to confusion. Some of the principles will apply equally well to both home
and foreign missions, as you will readily see. But from this point on, when we
speak of missions we are thinking of missions overseas.

WHY PEOPLE OPPOSE MISSIONS Of course you can expect people who are not
Christians to oppose missions. It would be strange if they approved. After all,
we don’t believe in propagating what we think is not true. We may not mention
our disbelief when we are arguing against missions, but it can’t help being the
main factor. So we’re not going to bother with this kind of opposition.What does
concern us more is the opposition from those who claim to be Christians. These
are people who say they believe the Christian message, yet they oppose trying to
win other people to the same faith. Why? When we try to find the reasons, we run
into some arguments that are really excuses instead of reasons. We could call
them “camouflage reasons,” because they only serve to hide the real reasons. You
will usually hear them expressed with catch-words or phrases picked up from
somebody else and glibly repeated. “Charity begins at home” is probably the most
common. (As if that meant that charity ought never to leave home!) “Officious
meddling” is another term we hear, and sometimes “useless extravagance.” It’s
seldom worth while to refute such objections.

They are not the real reasons. But there are at least four basic reasons why
many people oppose missions, and we ought to give them some attention. The
first, and perhaps the chief reason, is one that you might have a hard time
getting the objector to admit. It is the lack of a personal and vital experience
of CHRIST. It’s safe to say that most of the members of our churches in the
homeland have never had a deep religious experience. Their parents were members
of the Church, and at the proper age they too joined.

There was no deep conviction about it; it was just the thing to do. Many hardly
ever attend Church services, but they still count themselves Christians. Others
are very faithful to the Church, very active in all its affairs, just as they
would be in a club.

Now such people find it hard to understand missions. Christianity is good, they
will admit. It is even better than other religions. But why try to force our
religion on other people? It is rather silly to get so wrought up about
religion. Who knows but what their religion is really better for them than ours?

Naturally the one who looks at the Church as he would at a club will not be
deeply concerned about spreading its ministry to the ends of the earth. Oh, he
may be proud of it and speak of it every now and then to friends and
acquaintances. Maybe you can even persuade him to give a little help in a
membership campaign. But that would be just for the local chapter. After all,
membership in the club is nice, but it isn’t a life-and-death affair.

How can such people comprehend those young men and women who are ready to bury
themselves in out-of-the-way places and give their very lives to win others to
CHRIST? They think it absurd. But the measure of CHRIST’s importance to us is
the extent to which we will go to make Him known to others. So we can say that
many are not interested in missions because their own faith doesn’t mean much to
them, and of course it wouldn’t be worth much to others. A second reason for
opposing missions is a preoccupation with self. Bluntly put, it is selfishness.

It is not the grasping sort of selfishness that tries to seize all the best for
one’s self. It is a more passive type that we might call self-centeredness. It
is the kind that becomes so absorbed in its own affairs that it is blind to the
needs of others.

Some of those who oppose missions are more than nominal Christians. They have
had a deep religious experience. They are seriously concerned about spiritual
needs that affect them personally or touch the local Church to which they
belong. But when it comes to missions, they say they “just can’t see it.”

Such a statement is more accurate than they realize. Indeed they “can’t see it.”
The difficulty is the lack of vision in themselves. They see well at short range
only. The needs of people beyond their range of sight do not concern them. Nor
can they understand why others should feel concerned. A third reason is
ignorance of actual conditions in mission lands. It’s strange that we are always
objecting that foreigners get a false picture of life in our land from the
movies they see. These movies were made right here in this country and by our
own countrymen. Yet at the same time we are quite willing to take our ideas of
life in other lands from the movies. But they are movies made by our people, and
as often as not they are shot right here at home. Some of them are about as far
removed from real life in those lands as they can be.

Some of course don’t get their ideas from pictures but from books. Then it
depends on the book.

If the book is fiction the setting may be just as fictional, just as artificial
as the plot. If it is a travel book, it still may be fiction. Some travelers are
excellent storytellers. Their books are absorbing reading? but not always true.
They write to entertain. They are often able to fill two or three hundred pages
with the hastily plucked fruits of a two-or three-weeks’ excursion. They don’t
know the language, so of course they don’t know the people. But they can give
you their impressions, and they can tell a lot of tales they have picked up here
and there - tales that are full of color, even though the colors are false. The
usual author will do one of two things when he writes about natives of other
lands. He may picture them as good-natured, contented, childlike people on whom
the American traveler looks with condescension. His servants and helpers he
calls his “boys.” Or he may picture them as altogether vicious, unprincipled
rogues, who need to be treated like the villains they are. With the first
picture the author succeeds in giving the impression that missions are actually
harmful. The native leads a carefree, happy-go-lucky life until the missionary
comes to change his way of living and spoil his Garden of Eden. A young
journalist in the South Pacific had such an idea. He saw some young Papuans with
black bands around their sleeves and at once condemned the missionaries for
teaching the natives “our rotten idea of wearing crape.” What he didn’t know was
that their former practice had been to lop off a joint of a finger whenever a
relative died. This was one of the “charming native customs” which the
missionaries had changed. The second picture makes the natives out as hopeless
and missionaries as useless. The converts are only clever rascals who impose on
the missionary’s gullibility. A well-known traveler in Korea was particularly
vicious in his written attack on American missionaries there, some years ago. He
blamed the missionaries for the disturbances which had taken place in the Orient
and urged the government to restrict what he called the “violence” of the
missionary enterprise. In the same book he says of the Korean, “He has neither
initiative nor the capacity for work, while he combines intemperance,
immorality, and laziness in varying degrees.” Then he goes on, “There is,
however, an antidote for this state of things. If sufficient point be put into
the argument, and the demonstration be further enforced by an occasional kick,
as circumstances may require, it is possible to convert a first-class,
sun-loving wastrel into a willing, if unintelligent, servant. Under any
conditions, his dishonesty will be incorrigible.” Would you be surprised to
learn that this traveler nearly lost his life at the hands of the Koreans? His
harsh tactics stirred up a riot among his servants. Before it was over he was
seriously wounded and barely escaped with his life. Yet his book is still widely
read.

During World War II, many Christian soldiers were sent to mission lands and saw
missions in operation. The days of war may not have been the best time to see
what they were doing, but the men were amazed at the real accomplishments they
saw. They had not expected to see such things. A firsthand view corrected many
of the false ideas they had before. A large number of them became enthusiastic
in their support of missions, and many are themselves serving as foreign
missionaries today. A final reason for opposing missions is one that, in its
older form, no longer bears much weight.

I suppose it is because people are no longer much interested in questions of
theology. For the reason is theological.

There are two types of theology which are not friendly to missions. The older
one is a type we sometimes call hyper-Calvinism. In its extreme form it
emphasizes the sovereignty of GOD to such an extent that man seems to be nothing
more than a puppet. Its classical expression of opposition to missions is in a
statement that an elderly minister is said to have made to William Carey, back
in the eighteenth century: “When GOD wants to convert the heathen, He’ll do it
without your help or mine!” But there is also a modern type of theology that
opposes missions, at least in the sense of our definition. It is a theology that
calls itself “liberal” but is so liberal that it can hardly be called Christian.
In its view Christianity is not unique. It is not the true religion, it is only
one of many. And religion is only man’s attempt to find GOD. Other religions are
just other roads to the same end. So missionary work is wrong. The religion of
other peoples might not suit us, but it fits them. Why unsettle them by trying
to get them to worship our way?

We can only remark that if this be called Christianity, it is certainly not the
Christianity of the New Testament. Neither is it the Christianity of the
historic Church. It is simply Satan’s original lie in a new garb.

~ end of chapter 1 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 02 - THE NEW TESTAMENT AND MISSIONS
========================================================================

CHAPTER TWO THE NEW TESTAMENT AND MISSIONS

HOW DID foreign missions get started? Was it a part of Christianity at the
beginning? Or did it come later? Did CHRIST himself have anything to say about
it? Is it a necessary part of the faith? The only way we can answer these
questions is to turn to the New Testament itself. In its pages the Christian
finds his rule of faith and practice. It is GOD’s final revelation through our
Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. And in it we find the earliest records of
Christian missionary work. So we must see what the New Testament has to say. But
in looking at the New Testament there is one error we want to avoid. We don’t
want to choose just a few scattered texts to prove our point. This “proof text”
method has its values. But it is also open to serious objections. It is all too
easy to take a text out of its setting and make it teach something it was never
meant to teach. So we are going to consider the broad sweep of New Testament
teaching. And when we refer to one passage or another, it will be simply to
illustrate the general truth we present. In most cases you won’t need the proof
of chapter and verse. Instead you will find that a clear view of New Testament
Christianity itself will give you the answers you want. You will see that
missions doesn’t really need justifying. It is taken for granted. In the New
Testament missions is the normal expression of vital Christianity. Of course we
don’t expect to cover all that the New Testament teaches about missions. The
field is too broad. For our purpose it will be enough to show the place of
missions in New Testament Christianity.

CHRISTIANITY IS BY NATURE MISSIONARY The New Testament pictures for us a faith
which is by its very nature missionary. In other words Christianity to be
Christianity has to be missionary. It is strange that so many fail to see this.
That is, it is strange until we realize that many people’s ideas of Christianity
have only a remote connection with the New Testament.Many have a false idea
about all religion. They think that religion is a purely private concern. It is
something like a taste in literature. Some people like serious books, some
prefer novels, while others prefer mystery stories and the daily paper. Each one
is free to read what he wants, but not to tell others what to read. It is a
purely personal matter. But the truth is that religion can seldom be a purely
personal matter, and Christianity even less than most other religions. We grant
that faith in CHRIST has to be personal. It is true, too, that some religious
exercises, such as prayer and Bible reading, can be carried on privately. But
these are not the whole of religion nor of the Christian faith.

Some countries, such as Spain, have pretended to believe that they are. They
have professed to grant religious liberty to minority groups like the
Protestants. They have said that everyone is free to believe as he chooses and,
in the privacy of his own home, to worship as he pleases. But he may not make
any public or even semipublic show of his faith. Neither may he speak of his
faith to others. This they call religious freedom. But of course that is only
when they are talking of other religions than their own.

Actually there are very few religions that one can profess and practice
privately. Such a religion would have to be mostly a matter of ritual, like some
lodge ceremonies. It could not change the daily conduct of the worshiper. If it
did, it would affect others. Besides, if his religion changed a thief into an
honest man, he would have to explain how it happened. Nor could a private
religion aim at any changes in society, good or bad. It would have to be a
religion content with things as they are. As a religion it would be a sham. But
this is far from true of Christianity. It has a great deal to do with personal
conduct. It aims to transform lives. And through changed lives it tries to work
changes in society, sometimes revolutionary changes. That is why CHRIST said
that He came “not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34).

There are many people, too, who have the false notion that religion is a matter
of country or race or temperament. The idea is not a new one. The Syrians
expressed it in Old Testament times in 1 Kings 20:23. They said about the
Israelites, “Their gods are gods of the hills; therefore they were stronger than
we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger
than they.”

We don’t express it quite so crudely today. But we do often say about those in
other lands, “Their religion fits them.” And some go even farther. Several
writers on Latin America in recent years have solemnly affirmed that
Protestantism can never take root there because, as they say, it is not
congenial to their culture! (Strangely enough, a recent census reveals well over
a million Protestants in the one Latin American country of Brazil.) Now it is
perfectly true that some religions by their very nature are limited to one
country or people. But this is far from true of all. Buddhism is a small
minority movement in India, the land of its origin. Its greatest successes have
been in other lands. Mohammedism has fewer followers in Arabia than in lands
which Mohammed never saw. It is sometimes called a desert religion; but
Indonesia, one of the two largest Mohammedan nations, is as far from desert as
it is possible to be. And when it comes to Christianity, we have a strange
phenomenon. It began among the Jews, but most of the Jews have never accepted
it. It began in the Orient, but its strongest centers today are in the West. Its
Scriptures are very little read in the original languages, but they are read
around the world in more than a thousand other tongues.

No, Christianity cannot be simply a matter of private concern. Neither can it be
limited to one country, one race, one type of culture. At least not the
Christianity of the New Testament.

“There are at least two major things that make Christianity missionary by
nature: its exclusive claims, and its view of mankind.

First, the exclusive claims of Christianity make it missionary. The Romans of
early centuries and the unbelievers of today both have resented Christianity’s
claim to be the one true religion. The Romans would have been willing to give it
a place among the many religions of the empire. In the same way the unbelievers
of today will usually admit that it is, on the whole, a good religion. But they
both object to the exclusiveness of the Christian faith. They resent its saying
that all other religions are false.

Now there can be no doubt that the New Testament claims exclusiveness for the
Christian message. It doesn’t picture GOD as a God; He is the only GOD Paul
says, “We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none
other God but one” (1 Corinthians 8:4).

Further, it doesn’t present JESUS CHRIST as a savior; He is the only Saviour of
men. For as Peter said, “There is none other name under heaven given among men,
whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). This is the witness of the whole New
Testament.

How does this make Christianity missionary? In just this way: If Christianity is
a religion and CHRIST is a savior, then my obligation to tell people about
CHRIST and his salvation is relatively small. After all, there are other ways of
salvation open to them. But if Christianity is the only true religion; if CHRIST
is the only Saviour; if the gospel is the only message that can offer men
eternal life - then how can I keep quiet? Can I rejoice in my own salvation,
knowing that others are dying without that salvation? Must I not feel as Paul
did when he wrote to the Romans, “I am a debtor... to preach the gospel to you”
(Romans 1:14-15)?

Also, Christianity’s view of mankind makes it missionary. When we talk about
salvation we mean salvation from sin and from the results of sin. Here is the
second reason why Christianity must be missionary. According to the New
Testament, mankind is lost, condemned by GOD because of its sin. “All have
sinned” (Romans 3:23).

Now sin is not a very popular or meaningful word among most people today. To
many the New Testament idea of sin is completely foreign. The pagan or the
Mohammedan may indeed be familiar with the word, and he may not hesitate to
confess that he is a sinner. Because to him, as likely as not, sin is just a
matter of ceremonial impurity. He has violated one of the arbitrary rules of his
god. So he will have to pay some sort of forfeit to get back into good standing.
But he is likely to view the matter rather lightly. After all, who could
possibly keep all the rules of the game without a mistake? Especially when you
are not always sure what they are. I am a sinner. So what? Aren’t we all? The
idea of sin as moral iniquity, as something that defiles, and degrades the soul
of the sinner, is not common outside of Christianity. That sin is something that
ought not to be, entirely apart from a divine command, is a new idea to most
unbelievers. Even where they confess that they are sinners, the sense of “the
sinfulness of sin” is lacking. Our civilized pagans are not much better. They
are acquainted with the words “crime,”

“delinquency,” and “error.” But to them “sin” is only a theological term used by
old-fashioned preachers and straight-laced killjoys.

Yet unquestionably sin is a major theme of the New Testament - sin and salvation
from sin. Sin has alienated the whole world from GOD, has corrupted the nature
of man, has brought condemnation and death. No one is free from it; no one can
save himself from it. Only in CHRIST is there salvation, a salvation provided by
GOD Himself. This is the New Testament message.

If we deny the New Testament view of man and his sin, we do not need to be
missionary. If men, after all, are fundamentally good, though they do make some
mistakes; if sin is not the desperate thing the New Testament makes it out to
be; if its results are not so disastrous; or even if we can plead that ignorance
of the Gospel relieves people from guilt and condemnation; then missions are not
imperative. But no man can fully believe the New Testament picture of mankind
apart from CHRIST and remain indifferent. If he really believes it he cannot
help feeling constrained to make the message of salvation known - known to lost
men everywhere.

JESUS CHRIST AND MISSIONS

JESUS CHRIST taught missions. It was not only at the beginning, when He called
His first disciples and said, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men”
(Matthew 4:19). Nor at the end of His earthly ministry, when He urged, “Go ye
into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). The
whole tenor of His life and ministry was missionary. Look at the purpose of
CHRIST’s coming.

Sometimes we hear it said that Paul was “the greatest missionary of all time.”
Among those who have followed CHRIST that is probably true. But greater yet as a
missionary was the Lord JESUS CHRIST Himself. The New Testament leaves us in no
doubt about the missionary purpose of His coming into the world. In fact, this
is one thing that makes it different from the birth of any other man. His coming
was voluntary, and it had a definite, clear-cut purpose.The Lord himself told of
that purpose when He said, “The Son of man is come to seek and to save that
which was lost” (Luke 19:10). Again He said, “I came down from heaven, not to do
mine own will, but the will of him that sent me” (John 6:38). And John wrote
much later that “God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might
live through him” (1 John 4:9).

JESUS CHRIST, then, was a missionary, a “sent one.” He was sent with a purpose.
And that purpose was the same as that of His missionaries today. It was to save
those who were lost, those who were “dead in trespasses and sins.”

Look, too, at the character of CHRIST’s life. The character of the life of
CHRIST was missionary in a very real sense. You see, a missionary, like an
ambassador, is sent to represent someone else. He has an individuality, but he
is expected to suppress it as much as possible. He is not allowed to have a
private life. His every act is viewed as the act of the One who sent him. His
speeches are not private expressions of opinion but official statements. He is
expected to stand in the place of the One who sent him. Of course missionaries,
like ambassadors, forget this once in a while. But JESUS CHRIST never forgot it.
One of the most outstanding characteristics of His life was its utter
selflessness. He told His followers that He came “not to be ministered unto, but
to minister, and to give his life...” (Matthew 20:28). And when Paul wanted to
back up his exhortation for each believer to “please his neighbor for his good
to edification,” he reminded them that “Even Christ pleased not himself” (Romans
15:3).

Even when CHRIST says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” He says it
without boasting or egotism. In fact He is exalting the Father, for He adds, “No
man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). The same is true when He
says, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). Actually this
last is a clear statement of His missionary character - He stood before them in
the place of the Father. And consider the objective of CHRIST’s ministry.

Some might think that CHRIST’s ministry was anything but missionary. That is, He
limited it almost exclusively to those of His own nation, the Jews. On one
occasion He told a foreign woman that He was “not sent but unto the lost sheep
of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24).

Yet in answer to her humble faith He granted her request. Also, when He first
sent out the Twelve He told them not to go to Gentiles or Samaritans (Matthew
10:5). Yet He Himself ministered to the Samaritans (John 4:5-42).

We need to understand such passages in the light of the whole Gospel. Then we
can see how they fit. Without entering into disputed matters of interpretation,
we can see two things clearly.

First, CHRIST dedicated His earthly ministry to His own people, the Jews. On
rare occasions He might minister to Samaritans or Gentiles, but these were
exceptions.But, second, even while He was ministering to the Jews He envisioned
a world-wide ministry for His Gospel. We see this on numerous occasions, not
just at the end of His life. For instance, in the early part of Matthew (Matthew
8:5-13), considered to be the most Jewish of the Gospels, we have the story of
the Roman centurion’s servant. In that case CHRIST granted the request and
praised the faith of the Gentile soldier. Then He added, in a prophetic vein,
“Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” Also toward the end of His life, in
the prophecy of Matthew 24:1-51 He said, “This gospel of the kingdom shall be
preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations” (Matthew 24:14).

Whatever the reason, CHRIST’s earthly ministry was to the Jews, but He taught
and prepared His disciples for the day when they would take His Gospel to all
nations. And the “great commission” deserves careful attention.

We have purposely waited until now to consider the so-called “great commission.”
We have done it because so many think of it as the one basis for missions in the
New Testament. As a result, if critics cast doubt on its authenticity, the whole
foundation for missions seems to be seriously weakened. But we have already seen
that missions is a part of the very nature of New Testament Christianity and is
taught by CHRIST Himself, even apart from the “great commission.”

CHRIST gave the “great commission” to His followers after His resurrection and
before His ascension. It was the one great charge He gave to His Church. There
are several accounts of the commission, and it may well be that CHRIST repeated
it more than once. In view of its importance, it would be strange if He didn’t.
All four Gospels and the Acts give it in one form or another. The most often
quoted of the Gospel accounts are those in Matthew and Mark. Matthew 28:18-20
says, “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in
heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

Mark 16:15-16 is shorter and somewhat different, “And he said unto them, Go ye
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not
shall be damned.”

We don’t need to go into the discussion here, for we are not limited to Matthew
and Mark. John also has something to say on the subject. He tells us that when
CHRIST first appeared among His disciples after His resurrection He said, “As my
Father hath sent me, even so send I you” (John 20:21). Luke also is not silent.
He tells us that after His resurrection CHRIST joined two disciples as they
walked along the way to Emmaus. They did not recognize Him until He sat down to
eat with them. Then they rushed back to Jerusalem to tell the others that they
had seen the Lord. But in the midst of their report, JESUS Himself appeared and
spoke to them. In His talk He said, “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved
Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance
and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I
send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem,
until ye be endued with power from on high” (Luke 24:46-49).

Again, in the Acts (Acts 1:8) we have another often quoted expression of the
same “Great Commission.” “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost
is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in
all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

Obviously we cannot deny that JESUS CHRIST taught missions, that He wanted His
followers to be missionary, that He wanted His Gospel to be preached throughout
the world.

~ end of chapter 2 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 03 - THE NEW TESTAMENT AND MISSIONS (CONTINUED)
========================================================================

CHAPTER THREE THE NEW TESTAMENT AND MISSIONS (Continued) THE HOLY SPIRIT AND
MISSIONS IN READING the New Testament we discover that sometimes the disciples
did not remember what JESUS had taught them. That was true of His resurrection.
Matthew alone tells us of four times when JESUS spoke of His resurrection in
advance (Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:9, Matthew 17:23; Matthew 26:32). He also
tells us that the Jewish religious leaders were aware of that teaching. When He
was crucified, they set a watch to make sure that He stayed in His grave. They
didn’t want His disciples to steal His body and then claim that He had risen.
But they might have spared themselves the trouble. The disciples apparently had
forgotten that teaching.

Besides this, they didn’t fully understand some of His teachings. They showed it
often when He was alive. Sometimes they asked for an explanation, but on at
least one occasion they were afraid to ask. And when He died, they clearly
didn’t understand the meaning of His death. That is, they didn’t understand it
until after His resurrection. Even then we may question whether they grasped its
full significance. Of course this is what any experienced teacher learns to
expect. He knows that those he teaches will not get all that he tries to give
them. And of what they do seem to get, they will retain only a part. The
inefficiency of the teacher may be partly to blame. But not chiefly. More often
the cause is in the pupils. Man’s ability to give full attention, to comprehend
and then to remember, is quite limited. From such conditions we would normally
expect CHRIST’s teachings to suffer change. No one wrote them down at the time,
so it wouldn’t be surprising if some were forgotten and others were twisted
because of poor understanding or recollection. We would also expect some
conflicting testimony about just what CHRIST did teach.

There are some who, looking at the purely human, say this actually happened. It
is the normal thing. So if the New Testament writers agree too closely on any
subject, it must be because they depended on the same document or source of
information. Such persons emphasize strongly the differences between the Gospel
of John and the other three, the “Synoptics.” They like to draw contrasts
between the theology of Paul and the theology of Peter or James. This is not the
place to go into the arguments they use to support such reasoning. But there is
one thing we can say. Without doubt the harmony between the various writings
that make up the New Testament is much more remarkable than any supposed
discrepancies. That such a varied group of writers, with no official board to
check their writings, should present such a unified picture of CHRIST and His
Gospel is astounding. It is this remarkable harmony that calls for explanation
much more than any supposed discrepancies. Of course CHRIST’s disciples had
imbibed much from simply being with Him during His ministry. Some might say that
they had “caught the spirit of CHRIST.” But as an explanation, of the harmony in
the New Testament, this falls far short. Those who have “caught the spirit” of a
great man don’t wait long after his death to differ among themselves. Just look
at the followers of any of our modern “great men.”

Rather, what the New Testament itself shows to be the controlling factor is a
different kind of spirit. It is not an intangible, impersonal influence; it is
the HOLY SPIRIT of GOD. JESUS Himself had promised His coming before He died. In
fact, JESUS went so far as to say that it was best for Him to leave so that the
HOLY SPIRIT could come. He said that He would send Him (John 16:7). He had
already told His disciples that part of the task of the HOLY SPIRIT would be to
“teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I
have said unto you” (John 14:26). Not only JESUS emphasized the importance of
the coming of the HOLY SPIRIT. After He had come, the disciples did the same.
The HOLY SPIRIT is so prominent in the Acts that long ago it was said that the
book should be called, not “the Acts of the Apostles,” but “the Acts of the HOLY
SPIRIT.” Moreover, in the rest of the New Testament, although He doesn’t glorify
Himself, the HOLY SPIRIT does take the leading part in directing and controlling
the growth of the Church.

FORESHADOWINGS OF FOREIGN MISSIONS UNDER THE SPIRIT The New Testament presents
the HOLY SPIRIT both as the Initiator and as the one controlling factor in
missions. He is prominent even in the foreshadowings of that movement. There
were at least two such foreshadowings in the early chapters of the Acts. The
first is in Acts 2:1-47, where we have the account of the coming of the SPIRIT
upon the believers after CHRIST’s ascension. It is significant that the SPIRIT
came on the Day of Pentecost.

Pentecost was the feast which, perhaps more than others, brought to Jerusalem
Jews from “every nation under heaven.” It was as if the SPIRIT wanted to make it
clear that the Gospel they began to preach that day should reach all nations.

Again, in the eighth chapter we have a most unusual account. We call it the
story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Philip, one of the first deacons of
the Church, had preached the Gospel in Samaria with remarkable effect. But now
the angel of the Lord told him to leave that work and go down to the desert road
that led from Jerusalem to Gaza. Here he saw a chariot to which the SPIRIT
directed him. The man in the chariot was a foreigner, an Ethiopian by birth and
residence, but apparently a convert to Judaism. Philip led him to faith in
CHRIST and baptized him. In both these cases there were foreshadowings of a work
to come in other lands and among Gentiles who had never professed the Jewish
faith. But they were only foreshadowings. The real work among the Gentiles had
not yet begun. But even in the foreshadowings it was the HOLY SPIRIT who
directed the work.

FIVE SPIRIT-DIRECTED STEPS In spite of CHRIST’s teaching, the Church did not at
first see clearly that the whole world was to be its field. It had to be led
out, step by step, into its world-wide missionary ministry. We can distinguish
five such steps. They are represented by five crucial acts in which the HOLY
SPIRIT played a leading part. We suggest that you read them for yourself in the
Book of the Acts. Before the first step was taken, Christianity was limited to
Jews and Jewish converts. After the last step it was obvious that Christianity
was for the whole world.

Step one: Peter preaches to Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48) The first time the Gospel
was preached to a purely Gentile group was when Peter preached in the home of
the Roman centurion, Cornelius. Peter had not wanted to do it. His prejudices as
a Jew kept him back. It took three divine acts to convince him that Gentiles
also could have a part in the Gospel. The first act was the heavenly vision the
Lord gave him in Joppa. Three times in the vision the Lord told him to kill the
animals he saw for food. Three times he refused. To a Jew they were unclean
animals. And three times the Lord told him, “What God hath cleansed, that call
not thou common.” On the heels of this vision came the men sent by Cornelius.
Cornelius, too, had had a vision in which he was told to send for Peter. Before
ever Peter saw the men, the HOLY SPIRIT told him, “Go with them, doubting
nothing: for I have sent them.” So after some hesitation he went. But going to
Cornelius was one thing, and admitting him to the blessings of the Gospel was
still another. Peter’s reluctance was still seen in his asking why they had sent
for him. When Cornelius told of his experience, Peter was partly persuaded,
especially in the light of his own vision. But it took a third divine act to
seal the whole thing. As Peter explained the Gospel to the assembled group, the
HOLY SPIRIT came on them as he had on the disciples on the Day of Pentecost.
This final act of the SPIRIT convinced Peter. He baptized those who had
believed. Later, when the Jewish believers in Jerusalem called on him to
explain, he justified himself on the ground that he had only acknowledged what
the SPIRIT had already done (Acts 11:17). This case was an exceptional one. We
never find it repeated in the New Testament. Some have said that it was Peter’s
use of the keys to open the door of faith to the Gentiles. It was certainly an
important act. Its full significance becomes even more evident later, when Paul
and Barnabas were called to account for their ministry to the Gentiles (Acts
15:7-11). It was Peter who first opened the door, but it was others who were to
bear the major burden of missions to the Gentiles.

Peter became rather the apostle “of the circumcision,” with his primary ministry
to Jews.

Step two: the Church in Gentile Antioch (Acts 11:19-26) Cornelius lived in
Judea. We might call it the home field. But Antioch was far beyond the borders
even of the northern region of Galilee. It was a Gentile city of great
importance in the eastern Mediterranean. To Antioch the Gospel was brought by
refugees. They were refugees from the persecution that began in Jerusalem when
Stephen was killed. Wherever they went they spoke of CHRIST, and here in Antioch
a flourishing congregation of believers sprang up through their witness. Whether
any of the congregation were really Gentiles may be doubted. But Antioch was to
become the first major center for spreading the Gospel among the Gentiles. The
Church in Antioch began independently of the Church in Jerusalem. But before
long that Church took a definite interest in it. To investigate the situation
and to establish the believers in their faith, they sent to Antioch an official
representative, Barnabas. Aside from having been born abroad, Barnabas’ chief
qualification seems to have been that “he was a good man, and full of the Holy
Ghost and of faith.”

Barnabas looked over the situation and rejoiced in the evident working of the
SPIRIT. He decided he would stay and help. But he also thought of another helper
who would probably fit in very well. Not too far away, at Tarsus in Asia Minor,
lived Saul, the man who later was called Paul. Barnabas had been the one to
introduce Saul to the Church at Jerusalem. Perhaps at that time Saul had told
him how that at his conversion the Lord had let him know that he was to work
among the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Acts 26:17-18). When Saul had left Jerusalem, the
Lord had said, “Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles” (Acts
22:21). So Saul would be peculiarly fitted to work in a Gentile city like
Antioch, and Barnabas brought him in. It was an important step.

Step three: Barnabas and Saul sent forth (Acts 13:1-52). The third step was
clearly dictated by the HOLY SPIRIT. “Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work
whereunto I have called them,” He said (verse 2). “So they, being sent forth by
the Holy Ghost, departed” (verse 4). The SPIRIT had called the men before. Now
the Church at Antioch set them apart for this advance missionary work.

We must not misunderstand the significance of what took place in Antioch. The
Church there was not a modern missionary Church. That is, it did not have a
mission board or society; it did not set up standards of acceptance for
missionary candidates nor plan their training; it did not tell them where to go
nor what to do; nor did it promise them financial support on the field. But that
certainly does not mean that such things are wrong.

What the Church did is this. It demonstrated its real interest in missions by
heeding the instructions of the SPIRIT and sending forth two of its Church
leaders and teachers. It went even farther. It identified itself with them and
the work they were to do by a sort of commissioning service, the laying on of
hands. These were not two individuals acting on their own responsibility; they
were sent forth by the Church. And to the Church they rendered their report when
they returned.

Step four: the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:1-41). This fourth step followed the
first missionary journey of Barnabas and Paul. In fact, it was a direct result
of that step and the preceding one. There were still many who were not convinced
that Gentiles could be Christians-at least not without becoming Jews. The issue
came to a head in Antioch. Some who had come down there from Jerusalem were
teaching that the converts had to become Jews in order to be Christians. This
has been called the first really great crisis in early Christianity. It was a
momentous one for Christian missions. To use CHRIST’s own figure of speech, it
was a case of “new wine in old bottles.” The new wine of the Gospel could not
successfully be bottled in the old Judaism.

If the Judaizers had been successful, if the converts had been required to
become Jews in order to be Christians, it is conceivable that Christianity might
still have been missionary. But it would have been unsuccessful. The Gospel of
CHRIST is a potent force. It has in itself the power to revolutionize men and
societies. But when its messengers are weighted down with all sorts of forms and
conditions that they have to propagate along with it, their task becomes almost
impossible. These Judaizing Pharisees may well have been honest men and
sincerely Christian yet unenlightened by the SPIRIT. They did not see then what
is so obvious today, that a Christianity of the sort they proposed, so closely
attached to the Judaism of that day, could never win the world. But while we may
criticize them in the light of today, we need to look out lest we fall in the
same sort of error. For it is all too common in missionary work today to insist
that people accept not only the Gospel, but with it all the paraphernalia to be
found in our churches at home. We are not Judaizers; but we do tend to become
Americanizers. A Church council was called in Jerusalem to consider the problem.
And the turning point in its deliberations came when Peter gave his testimony of
how the SPIRIT had worked in the case of Cornelius. Since GOD had accepted the
Gentiles on the basis of simple faith in CHRIST, why should the Church try to
lay greater burdens on them? To this word was added the testimony of Barnabas
and Paul. They told how the SPIRIT had worked among the Gentiles on their
missionary journey.

Then the council gave its decision. The Judaizers were repudiated. The Gentiles
should not be troubled in their new faith. The simple prohibitions that the
council laid down were in no way a hindrance to further missionary work.
Instead, the way was now clear for a greater expansion.

It is important to note that when the council gave its decision it said, “It
seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us” (Acts 15:28).

Step five: to the regions beyond in Europe (Acts 16:1-40)Our fifth and final
step was taken at Troas. Paul and his companions on the second missionary
journey had gone clear across Asia Minor to the northwest. As they moved
forward, the SPIRIT had hemmed them in on the right hand and on the left until
they came down to the sea. To go any farther would mean crossing over into
Europe. It would be a big step. This step, too, was guided by the HOLY SPIRIT.
Not only had He guided the missionaries to Troas. In that city he gave Paul the
well-known vision of the man of Macedonia. This determined the missionaries to
go on over into Europe. But what did this step mean? It was not the first time
the Gospel was proclaimed in Europe.

There were probably believers already in Rome. In fact, Paul was soon to write a
letter to them before visiting them.

It may have been an indication that Christianity was to turn westward and
northward for its greatest successes-to Europe rather than Asia. But take note
that the Asia mentioned in verse 6 is not the continent of Asia. It was a
province of Asia Minor named Asia, with Ephesus as its chief city. Paul visited
it later on this same journey. Perhaps we may say that this was the first
missionary entrance of Europe-the first time men went there with the deliberate
purpose of spreading the Gospel. Other missionaries would soon be following. And
Europe was later to be the major center of Christendom. But perhaps just as
important is the fact that this was Paul. Not in vain was he called “the apostle
of the Gentiles,” Not for naught do modern writers call him “the greatest
missionary.” His work was dynamic and it took firm root. It is not uncommon
today to study his work in order to improve our own. His work was intensive, yet
it became much more extensive than that of others. No man has left a greater
mark on Christian missions than Paul.

Now Paul’s ministry up to this time had been in western Asia - especially in
Syria, Palestine and Asia Minor. His original home was in southeastern Asia
Minor. There were many Greeks in Asia Minor, but it was still different from
Europe. A water barrier separated the two continents, but with it there seems to
have been also a barrier in thinking. At least in Paul’s case this seems to have
been true. When the SPIRIT led him to sail across to Macedonia, it appears that
in his thinking the last barrier to a world ministry was passed. He didn’t stop
in Macedonia. On down into Greece he went. He conceived a great desire to go on
to Rome. He wrote of this to the Church at Rome and mentioned that he would like
them to help him on his way farther west to Spain (Romans 15:23-24). The first
step toward a full proclamation of the Gospel among the Gentiles was taken when
Peter preached to Cornelius. The last was when Paul went to Macedonia. And all
along the way it was the HOLY SPIRIT who was directing the movement.

~ end of chapter 3 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 04 - THE NEW TESTAMENT AND MISSIONS (CONCLUDED)
========================================================================

CHAPTER FOUR THE NEW TESTAMENT AND MISSIONS (Concluded) MISSIONARY WORK BY
OTHERS THAN PAUL

MOST PEOPLE tend to think of Paul and his companions as the only missionaries in
the New Testament. Some have gone so far as to consider Paul the standard, the
norm, and to disregard others entirely. This does violence to the truth,
regardless of what we may think of the values of Paul’s example for us today.
Paul may have been the greatest of the early missionaries, but he was far from
the only one.

We have an advantage in speaking of the missionary work of Paul. We know more
about it. Not only do we have a long section of the Acts devoted to his work,
but we also have a collection of his own letters. On the other hand we know
comparatively little about the missionary work of the others. That the twelve
apostles were intended to be missionaries, and that most of them did become
missionaries, is hardly open to question. Their very title “apostle” is the
Greek form of the word “missionary.” They did stay around Jerusalem for a long
time, perhaps until the council described in Acts 15:1-41. In that chapter
“apostles and elders” are mentioned. But by the time of Paul’s last visit to
Jerusalem, it appears that all the apostles had left the city. Acts 21:18 says
only that “all the elders were present.” Whether more than one of the apostles
may have died by that time we have no way of knowing. Of course James, the
brother of John, had long before been executed by Herod (Acts 12:2).

About Peter we do know a little. While Paul calls Peter “the [apostle] of the
circumcision,” that did not keep him from being a foreign missionary. Paul
himself tells us of Peter’s being in Antioch (Galatians 2:11). He was even
fellowshipping with the Gentile believers in that foreign city. In fact, Paul
says he scolded him for withdrawing from the Gentiles when certain Jews came up
from Jerusalem.

We can’t be sure whether Peter ever visited Corinth, in Greece. It doesn’t seem
very likely. Yet he did have an influence there. It was such an influence that,
when the Church began to split into several factions, one of the parties claimed
to be Peter’s party (1 Corinthians 1:12).Furthermore, Peter’s first Epistle
implies that it was written from the foreign city of Babylon (1 Peter 5:13).
This is not at all strange. Even though Peter ministered chiefly to Jews, we
know that there were many Jews in that eastern region who never returned to
Palestine after the captivity.

It is true that Roman Catholic writers claim that by Babylon Peter really meant
Rome. This is largely because they want to find in Scripture some proof of their
claim that he was the first bishop of Rome, the first Pope. However, in either
case he would be a foreign missionary. Also, though the tradition is much
disputed, there is a story that he was martyred in Rome. The Scripture gives us
little information about the later ministry of John. It seems clear that he and
Peter were both in Jerusalem until the time of the Jerusalem council (Galatians
2:9). But after that we are not sure. The almost universal tradition is that he
went to Ephesus, a mission field, where he ended his days. It also says that it
was from Ephesus that he was exiled to the island of Patmos, where he received
the Revelation.

If we have little information in the New Testament about the later ministry of
Peter and John, we have even less about the rest of the Twelve. The Syrian
Christians of South India claim that Thomas went to India and established their
Church. The claim has enough basis to be given serious consideration by
historians. There is also a tradition that Matthew went to Egypt and Ethiopia.
And there are other traditions concerning others of the Twelve. Some of the
traditions are plausible; others are later inventions and obviously false. From
all the evidence that we have, the most that we can say is that all of the
apostles except James appear to have become foreign missionaries. But besides
the Twelve there are also other missionaries mentioned by name in the New
Testament.

We have already said something about Barnabas. He occupies a prominent place and
appears to have been the actual leader of the first missionary journey with
Paul. It is interesting to notice that he is called an apostle in Acts 14:14. He
parted company with Paul after an argument about taking Mark along on a second
trip. Barnabas may have been influenced by the fact that Mark was a relative,
but later results seem to show that his judgment was sound. Paul himself, toward
the end of his life, wrote to Timothy, “Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for
he is profitable to me for the ministry” (2 Timothy 4:11). But of Barnabas’
later ministry, all that we know is that he returned to Cyprus.

Silas we know as Paul’s second partner on his missionary journeys. Timothy and
Titus were younger men whom he associated with himself in his missionary work.
The Epistles he wrote to them might be called “letters to younger missionaries.”
They tell us a little about these men, and also something about the missionary
principles and methods in which Paul instructed them.

Luke, a physician, accompanied Paul for a time. Just how often or how long, we
don’t know. But his greatest service was in his writing. He wrote one of the
four Gospel accounts. In addition, he became the first missionary historian in
writing the Book of the Acts.Paul and Luke both tell us of others who did
missionary work, such as Apollos, Aquila and Priscilla, Demas and Tychicus. But
we get only fragmentary glimpses of them. We wish we knew more. Of this we are
sure. The missionaries whose names we know are only a small portion of the great
company of missionaries who, in New Testament times, carried the Gospel to a
large part of the Roman world and beyond. Who first preached the Gospel in Rome?
We don’t know. Who established the Church in Alexandria, metropolis of Egypt? We
have no idea. What were the names of those who began the work in Antioch? They
are not given. Yet these were three of the principal cities of the empire.

It is clear that there were many Christians engaged in spreading their faith to
other lands. A large part were humble witnesses whom circumstances had taken to
those lands. But there was a vitality in their faith that made them proclaim it
wherever they went. There were others who, whether on their own initiative or
under commission from a Church, devoted their lives to this task of missions.
And, as in the case of any good work, there were even some false missionaries.

Paul found it necessary to warn against them on at least one occasion (2
Corinthians 11:13.)

CONCLUSION In conclusion we may state with certainty that the New Testament is a
distinctively missionary book. All the authors of its various parts were
missionaries, with the possible exception of James and Jude. In fact, almost
without exception the books appear to have been written in a foreign language -
Greek. In only one or two cases is it seriously suggested that a book may have
been written originally in Aramaic, the language of the Jews of that day. As far
as our earliest copies are concerned, they are all in Greek. The Epistles of
Paul were all written to missionary churches or to younger missionaries, except
the one to Philemon, who was a member of a missionary Church. James and Peter
both wrote to Jews, but to the Jews abroad. The Revelation was written for the
comfort and encouragement of missionary churches. And of course the Acts is
primarily a missionary account. Luke’s previous book, the Gospel, was written
for Theophilus, whose name is Greek, whether he is a real person or only stands
for the Greek-speaking believers.

All in all, we cannot escape the conclusion that New Testament Christianity is
essentially and intentionally missionary.

~ end of chapter 4 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 05 - THE OLD TESTAMENT AND MISSIONS
========================================================================

CHAPTER FIVE THE OLD TESTAMENT AND MISSIONS WHEN A MISSIONARY wants to give the
people among whom he is laboring the Word of GOD in their own tongue, he begins
by translating some part of the New Testament. This is perfectly proper, for it
is in the New Testament that we have the message of JESUS CHRIST our Saviour.
The culmination of GOD’s revelation to man is JESUS CHRIST. And these are the
books that tell us of Him and of the salvation that He wrought. So then,
although they have translated some parts of the Bible into well over a thousand
languages, most of these have only the New Testament or a part of it.

Now the missionaries do not mean by this that we should entirely neglect the Old
Testament.

Doubtless none of them would be willing to say that the Old Testament is any
less the Word of GOD than the New. If it were possible to give the people the
whole Bible, they would not withhold any bit of it. This is true even where the
reading of the Old Testament might raise some questions difficult to explain.

There are few who would go as far as did Ulfilas, the great pioneer missionary
to the Goths in southeastern Europe. You may remember that Ulfilas provided the
first translation of the Bible into any Germanic tongue. But he refused to
translate the Books of the Kings. His Goths were already too inclined to warlike
deeds. He was not going to provide them with any further encouragement or excuse
from the Bible if he could help it. But most missionaries today do not shun to
declare to the people “all the counsel of God” insofar as they are able.
Polygamous Africans are even allowed to read the story of polygamy in the Old
Testament. Still it is true that missionaries, as well as preachers here in the
homeland, cannot avoid dwelling much in the pages of the New Testament, with
their rich exposition of the life that is ours in CHRIST.

Even in choosing a text for a missionary message to the folks at home, a text
which often serves only to give a sort of Biblical introduction to our story of
life and Christian service in another land, we usually turn to such passages as
Acts 1:8 or Romans 10:14-15. Only occasionally do we refer to some passage in
the Old Testament. Is it that the Old Testament is lacking in missionary
character? Not at all. It doesn’t indeed have so many brief, to-the-point texts
that can readily be used to introduce a missionary talk. But its missionary
character is readily apparent to those who become familiar with its message.

Now in studying the missionary character of the Old Testament, there is one
thing we want to avoid so far as possible. It is the same as in our study of the
New Testament. We don’t want to choose certain proof-texts from here and there,
pulling them out of their context and arbitrarily putting them together to prove
our thesis. We want to seek honestly for the message that the Old Testament
itself has to give us.

Three questions stand out for which we want answers. Let me state them briefly
to begin with, and then come back to deal with each one in detail. First is the
question, “Does the Old Testament have a missionary message?” That is, does the
message of the Old Testament have prime significance not only for the Jewish
people, and not only for the age in which it was written, but also for other
peoples and for other ages? Does its message have a vital importance for us
today? Does it concern peoples whose culture differs as widely as that of the
Russians and the Japanese? Our second question is this, “Does the Old Testament
show a missionary purpose?” That is, does it show that it was GOD’s intention to
have its message known among other peoples besides the Jews? It is not always
easy to show intent. GOD doesn’t always reveal clearly just what His ultimate
purpose in any case may be. But we shall see what revelations of His purpose we
may be able to find in this regard. And for the last question we would ask,
“Does the Old Testament reveal any missionary activity?” That is, was there
before the time of CHRIST any attempt to bring the blessings of the Old
Testament revelation to others? We can readily understand that the Jewish nation
as a whole might overlook its missionary responsibility. Hasn’t the Christian
Church done the same thing for long periods of its history? In fact, aren’t
there many Christians today, in spite of the clear injunctions in the New
Testament, who say they don’t believe in missions? But our question is, “Was
there any comprehension of a missionary responsibility among those who had the
Old Testament revelation? And was there any attempt to fulfill this
responsibility, whether by direct evangelism or in some other way?”

Now let us return to our first question, DOES THE OLD TESTAMENT HAVE A
MISSIONARY MESSAGE? A missionary message, of course, is a message that one has
and another needs. It is a message that ought to be propagated, spread abroad.

Just what is the message of the Old Testament? Clearly it is more than just
history and law and poetry and prophecy. These are what we might call the
“literary values” of the Old Testament. But its greatest value is the message it
seeks to give us. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is referring to the
Old Testament when he says in his opening verse, “God... hath... spoken.” And
about what has He spoken?

First of all, He has spoken about Himself, the beginning and the end.And what is
the Old Testament message about GOD? Here some unbelievers will say that there
is more than one. They will object that the GOD of the prophets is not the same
as the GOD of the law. They try to reconstruct the development of the idea of
GOD in the Old Testament according to their own notions. Jehovah was at first a
tribal deity of a wandering group of Bedouins. Then, as the Jewish nation
emerged and grew, they needed a broader concept. So their crude, harsh and
primitive ideas gave way to the more advanced views of a later day. Of course
this is simply the old evolutionary hypothesis carried over from biology to
religion. But we are not going to follow these fanciful reconstructions. Rather
we shall see in broad terms what the Book says. Our first picture of GOD is that
of the CREATOR of the universe. We ourselves are so familiar with this concept
that we fail to grasp its significance for others. We think it rather trite.

Now it is true that many heathen do have a more or less vague idea of a CREATOR.
But others do not. When Paul preached his famous sermon on Mars Hill in Athens,
he saw fit to begin with, “God that made the world and all things therein” (Acts
17:24).

What a message this is to the millions who still fear the spirits of rivers and
trees, mountains and lakes, animals, birds and other creatures! “There is an
almighty GOD over all, a GOD who created all things!” “The heavens declare the
glory of GOD and the firmament sheweth his handiwork” (Psalms 19:1). Is not this
a missionary message?

Closely allied with this picture of GOD is that of His oneness. GOD is one. This
uniqueness of GOD is the substratum of the whole Old Testament from the Law
through the Prophets.

It is on the basis of this teaching that Mohammedan missionary work has been
built and has had its great successes. “There is no God but God!” Man in his
rebellion against GOD has invented a multiplicity of gods. But now he groans to
be delivered from these demons of his own creation.

What a missionary message, to be able to assure men that they do not need to try
to placate a horde of capricious, evil-working spirits! There is one GOD, one
only. It is the one who created all things.

Third, the Old Testament pictures GOD as righteous. Again there are some who
think this is trite. “Of course GOD is righteous,” they say, “otherwise He
wouldn’t be GOD.” But this is only an indication of what effect the Bible has
had on their thinking. Even those who profess unbelief are affected by its
teachings. For where did they get the idea that GOD is righteous? The heathen
gods are not righteous. That is, they are not righteous in any moral sense. They
can only be considered righteous if we admit that anything a god does is right
simply because the god does it. The pagan gods are deceitful, immoral,
licentious creatures whose only law is their own caprice.

Many speak of the stern justice of the GOD of the Old Testament as if it were
unattractive and unbecoming; They do not realize how even this would be a great
relief to the followers of pagan gods. The pagan gods are like Oriental despots;
their very whims are laws, and what is right today may be altogether wrong
tomorrow. “How can you know?” their followers ask. “How can you be sure what the
god wants?” What a relief to worship a GOD whose demands are always right and
just! But in the fourth place GOD is also merciful and compassionate. All
through the Old Testament His justice is balanced with mercy and compassion. We
see it even in close association with His judgment. We see it in the covenant He
made with Noah and all mankind right after the flood (Genesis 9:15-17). We see
it in the Law, “shewing mercy unto thousands” (Exodus 20:6). We see it in the
Psalms and in the Prophets (Psalms 119:64; Micah 7:18). How the world needs this
mercy and compassion!

Finally, the Old Testament shows us a GOD who is sincerely interested in His
creatures, especially in man. There is nothing farther from the Old Testament
view than the picture of a GOD who created the world, established its laws, “set
it going, and then went fishing.”

It is not only in such New Testament passages as John 3:16 that we find GOD’s
concern expressed for mankind. It is found throughout the Old Testament. Even in
the special covenant He made with Abraham (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 18:18; Genesis
22:18) and repeated later to Jacob (Genesis 28:14) He did not fail to mention
the blessing it would bring to all the world.

Second, GOD has spoken about man. The Greek philosopher who urged, “Know
thyself,” expressed a deep truth. We don’t know ourselves, but we need to. We
need to know our capabilities and our weaknesses. We need to know wherein we are
like others and wherein we differ. We need to know what can be expected of man -
what forces move him. The first thing the Old Testament tells us about man is
that he was made in GOD’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). There are some unbelievers
who scoff at this. They laughingly say instead that “man made GOD in his own
image.” But false as their statement is, it is still not so ridiculous as you
might think. For if man had to invent a GOD he couldn’t do better than make him
in the image of man. After all, what higher nature has he ever known? With all
his weaknesses and his failures, man is still the crown of creation. He is the
only creature who has been able to bring much of the rest of creation under some
measure of personal control. No wonder the Psalmist wrote, “Ye are gods; and all
of you are children of the most High” (Psalms 82:6).

Now it is not easy for us who look on the outward appearance to see GOD’s image
in man.

Sometimes we find it particularly hard. There are some in whom it seems to be
disfigured more than usual. We ourselves fall far short of GOD’s perfection, yet
we tend to despise those others who seem to be a little farther away from it
than we. We magnify their inferiority to us, forgetting the old adage of “the
pot calling the kettle black.”

We talk about racial superiority. We used to speak of “the white man’s burden.”
We agree with the Latin American, who looks down on the Indian as an inferior
creature and proudly speaks of himself as a racional, a “rational being.” We
even talk sometimes about the uselessness of missionary work among backward
peoples. And all because we refuse to believe the truth we find at the beginning
of the Old Testament: that man, as man, was made in GOD’s image.

Closely related to this first teaching is the Old Testament doctrine of the
unity of the human race. The Old Testament does at times distinguish between
families and tribes and nations. But our modern racial discrimination is
completely foreign to it. It is true that there are some who try to justify
their racial attitudes by an appeal to the Old Testament. There are a few who
still call attention to the curse that Noah pronounced against Canaan, the son
of Ham (Genesis 9:25).

They say that because of that curse all Negroes must forever be servants. But
such teachings don’t come from a study of the Old Testament. Instead, they are
born of our prejudices. And because we want to believe them, we try to find some
basis for them in Holy Writ. In all honesty we ought to call them
rationalizations.

What the Old Testament does clearly teach is the unity of the human race. We all
have a common ancestor. In him we all were made in GOD’s image. By descent from
him we all are brethren. Each has followed his own willful way, and some have
prospered more than others, but in nature we are one - one even in our sins.

Men always have resisted this idea of the unity of mankind. Partly it is because
of pride, the sort of pride that makes a prosperous man deny his poor relations.
But even more it is because it means responsibility. If all mankind is one, then
every ruler is responsible to his people, the noble to the commoner, the
privileged to the less privileged. They are all of the same stuff. Then, too,
those in foreign lands who don’t have the blessings that we enjoy in CHRIST do
have a just claim on us. It doesn’t matter that their race and culture are
different from ours. They are still of the same blood. But the Old Testament is
also a message about man’s sin.

Like a great mirror, the Old Testament reveals to us our hearts. And what we see
is not altogether pleasant. It is not a cause for pride. Even the best of us are
guilty. Sin has corrupted all of mankind. The heathen gods are nearly always
arbitrary and capricious. Their commands are seldom based on what is of itself
right and good. As a result, sin among the heathen comes to be not much more
than ceremonial defilement. It is not impurity of heart but of body; not
violation of conscience but of rules. But in the Old Testament sin is revealed
as moral iniquity. Before ever the Law was given, in the days before the flood,
“the imagination of man’s heart” was evil, and GOD condemned him.

Sin existed apart from the Law. It was not the Law that made it sinful. The Law
merely pointed it out and condemned it.

Now the Law did establish for the Israelites certain forms and ceremonies. But
they were never intended to be an end in themselves. Isaiah 1:11-17 shows how
useless GOD held them to be by themselves. “To what purpose is the multitude of
your sacrifices unto me saith the LORD..

. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine
eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well...” Not only among the heathen but in
all the world today this message is needed. Even in Roman days it had a great
attraction for pagan idolators. The Old Testament told of a standard of
righteousness that was unchangeable, a righteousness that was in the very nature
of things. So numerous Romans and Greeks became converts to Judaism. They felt
the need for such a message.

Besides this, the Old Testament pictures sin as universal among men. No one is
free from its contamination. All are sinners and need to be redeemed from sin.
How strangely this contrasts to the idea that many hold today - the notion that
primitive peoples lead a happy, childlike existence, unaware of sin until the
missionary comes. Not only is this far from the Old Testament teaching, it is
the most absurd sort of fiction. Only overromantic Americans, ignorant of the
realities of heathenism, could imagine such things. For however perverted his
ideas of sin, the heathen is always conscious of its presence. And the Old
Testament also reveals sin as that which separates men from GOD (Psalms 14:2-3).
That is the burden of its message: sin separating man from the source of life;
GOD seeking to reconcile man to Himself that he may live again. This indeed is a
message that is needed - a missionary message. But again, the Old Testament
message is also a message of salvation and hope. From the entrance of sin, in
Genesis 3:1-24, to such wonderful prophetic utterances as Isaiah 1:18, this
message is repeated in innumerable ways. “Though your sins be as scarlet, they
shall be as white as snow.” Who could keep such a message to himself? Who could
believe the reality of such a hope and not make it known to others?

We could go on and show other details of the Old Testament message that are
missionary. We find, for example, that the Old Testament is concerned with the
fundamental problems of all mankind, and not just those of one group. Its appeal
is so universal that people everywhere forget that its leading characters were
Jewish. They think of them in terms of their own race and nation. This
universality of appeal makes it a missionary Book.

Then, too, there is no question about the missionary character of its prophetic
message. The prophets often forgot national boundaries as they carried out their
ministry. It was too big, too vital to be limited to one people, even the
“chosen people.” But we don’t believe it is necessary to go farther. The message
of the Old Testament clearly has a missionary character.

~ end of chapter 5 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 06 - THE OLD TESTAMENT AND MISSIONS (CONTINUED)
========================================================================

CHAPTER SIX THE OLD TESTAMENT AND MISSIONS (Continued)

WE HAVE SPENT a great deal of time with the missionary message of the Old
Testament. If the message is missionary, then it is not necessary for us to get
other evidence to prove that the Old Testament also has a missionary purpose.
Yet we can plainly show that, too, from the words of the Old Testament itself.

Look at the opening chapters of Genesis. Man sinned, and immediately GOD made
known what was to be the channel of His redemption. But as we read the story in
chapter 3 we realize that this is not to be the redemption of just a single man
or group of men. GOD’s plan embraces the whole of humanity. He purposed to
provide a salvation sufficient for all mankind.

Again, in chapter 4 we have the account of the first murder. But with it we have
the foundation for that very sense of missionary responsibility that Paul
expresses so forcefully in Romans 1:14.

GOD questioned Cain about his brother. Cain burst out rather petulantly, “Am I
my brother’s keeper?” And many a modern follower of Cain has tried to shrug off
responsibility in the same way. But GOD still thrusts aside that flimsy excuse.
He still wants to hear from us the acknowledgment, “I am debtor both to the
Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise and to the unwise; so as much as
in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel” - I am ready to tell everyone the
good news of GOD’s redemption. The first eleven chapters of Genesis have to do
with the whole of mankind. It is not until chapter 12 that the scope is more
limited. Then we have GOD choosing one man, Abram, and his descendants to stand
in a special relationship to Himself. The Hebrew people are to be the channel of
His revelation and of the salvation that He is going to bring to the world. But
even in choosing Abram, and in making a special covenant with him, GOD didn’t
lessen His vital interest in all men. Look at the way He states His promise to
this man of faith. Every time He repeats it He mentions that He proposes in this
way to bring blessing to the whole world. “In thee shall all families of the
earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3); “all the nations of the earth shall be blessed
in him” (Genesis 18:18); “in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed” (Genesis 22:18). When He renews the promise to Jacob, He says the same
thing, “In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed”
(Genesis 28:14).In the Book of Exodus we have the beginning of GOD’s special
dealings with the Hebrew people, as He tries to make them into a nation to
fulfill His purposes. We see Him called “the God of the Hebrews,” as if He were
a purely national deity. His great final purpose in choosing them is nearly lost
to sight. It is subordinated to the immediate program of welding them into a
nation and bringing them into possession of the promised land. When He gave the
Law to the people at Mount Sinai, the Ten Commandments did begin with a reminder
that the GOD who was speaking was the same one who had created the universe. But
the Law itself and the covenant were given to them as a people distinct from the
rest of mankind.

Still, even in the Law we don’t entirely lose sight of the final world-wide
objective. In Numbers 14:21 GOD says, “As truly as I live, all the earth shall
be filled with the glory of the LORD.”

Again in Deuteronomy 10:14-19 He reminds the Israelites, “Behold, the heaven and
the heaven of heavens is the Lord’s thy God, the earth also, with all that
therein is. Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he
chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day... For
the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords.” And lest they should get
haughty because of this great privilege He adds, “Love ye therefore the
stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Of course when we come to
the prophets the consciousness of GOD’s missionary purpose becomes very strong.
Perhaps no one expresses it more beautifully than Isaiah. In Isaiah 49:6, GOD
speaks to His servant the Messiah, and says, “It is a light thing that thou
shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the
preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that
thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.” And in another Messianic
passage, Isaiah 52:13-15, GOD says: “Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he
shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonied at thee;
his visage was marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
so shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for
that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not
heard shall they consider.” Does the Old Testament show a missionary purpose?
Who can doubt it? Even in the choosing of the Hebrew people that missionary
purpose stood out. As one writer has put it, “The choice of one race among many
was not an anti-missionary act on GOD’s part, selecting one and letting others
go by; it was rather among the most missionary of His acts, choosing one and
filling it with a sense of His will and deep understanding of His nature so that
it might teach all mankind that nature and that will. GOD’s elections are always
for the channeling of blessings. The favored group that forgets this will soon
lose the favor.”

MISSIONARY ACTIVITY Our third question is an interesting one, and one that
deserves more careful study and attention than we are going to be able to give
it. Does the Old Testament reveal any missionary activity? Was there any attempt
to bring the blessings of the Old Testament revelation to others? Did those who
received the revelation comprehend its scope? Did they realize that it was for
all men? Were the descendants of Abram conscious of their God-given task?

It is very evident that a majority of the people didn’t have any such
consciousness. In the minds of many doubtless the idea of the extension of the
message was identified with the idea of the expansion of political Israel. The
benefits to be had through a knowledge of the true GOD were for those who became
Jews. This is not a strange idea. In fact it is all too readily understood in
the world today. A common accusation against the missionaries of CHRIST in many
lands is that they are tied up with their governments. They are held to be spies
or advance agents of American or British imperialism, either politically or
economically. But if the Old Testament has a clear missionary message and
purpose, there must have been some appreciation of the call to a more unselfish
ministry. In some cases we know that this was true. Whatever other lessons we
may get from the Book of Jonah, for example, we know that it is a definitely
missionary book. The prophet’s message was not a pleasant message. He was a very
unwilling, and later a disgruntled missionary. Yet a missionary he was, and that
in the distant Assyrian city of Nineveh.

Still, such examples of missionary activity are comparatively rare in the Old
Testament. Such men as Daniel did make GOD known in other lands; but little is
said about any large-scale attempt to win others to His worship. In spite of
this lack of information about missionary activity in the Old Testament, we know
that some was carried on before the time of CHRIST. CHRIST himself speaks of the
strenuous efforts of the Pharisees “to make one proselyte” (Matthew 23:15). Also
there were numerous proselytes, or converts to the Jewish faith, who came to the
feasts at Jerusalem, as on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:10). So there was some
recognition of missionary responsibility, even though it was very little in
comparison with the later Christian missionary enterprise. For it is in
Christianity that missions reaches its peak.

~ end of chapter 6 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 07 - MOTIVES AND AIMS OF MISSIONS
========================================================================

CHAPTER SEVEN MOTIVES AND AIMS OF MISSIONS

BEFORE WE TALK about the particular motives and aims that we ought to have in
missions, we need to understand our terms. We often confuse the two words,
motives and aims, both in our thinking and speaking. We use them to mean just
the same thing.

Now a motive is something that prompts one to act. It is the force that impels
us to do what we do. It may be considered as answering the question Why. An aim
is an objective, an end in view. It is what we expect to accomplish through our
action. It may be regarded as answering the question what or to what end.

What brings the two into such close association that they are hard to
distinguish is this, sometimes the purpose to be accomplished by our action is
so desirable in itself that it moves us to act. The motive force then is the
force of attraction. It is the force of the magnet instead of that of the
rocket. It is the sort of power that a prize has to make men exert themselves
more than they ever would through a sense of duty. In this chapter, however, we
are going to try to keep the two things distinct. To get at the motives we want
to ask, “Why do people want to be foreign missionaries? What reasons impel them
to offer their lives for Christian service in foreign lands?” We are going to
keep it on this personal level, which is basic, rather than talk about the
Church’s motives.

We need to answer these questions. In one way or another every young person who
volunteers to serve CHRIST in the foreign field has met them or is sure to do
so. Sometimes those who ask the questions are scoffers - those who have no real
comprehension of Christianity and can’t be expected to understand its world
ministry. But just as often they are professing Christians, some of whom would
sincerely like to know. Then sometimes, too, it is the candidate’s own heart
that wants a clear-cut answer.

If you are thinking of foreign missionary service, you want to evaluate your
motives carefully.

There is perhaps no other type of work where your motives will have so much to
do with your success. Romantic notions, the desire to travel, the “lure of the
exotic,” the purely emotional response to a stirring missionary message - all
these are motives. They may even be strong enough to get some young people out
to the field. But their weakness shows up just as soon as the young missionary
comes face to face with conditions in an unfavorable, even actively hostile
heathen environment. They won’t keep you going. A Chinese writer, now teaching
in an American university, has commented on the ineffectiveness of many modern
missionaries to China. He says that one of the main reasons is that missionaries
today don’t have the strong motivation that earlier missionaries had. Maybe some
of the early missionaries were not as well educated as they should have been,
but they had an overpowering sense of divine mission that overcame all
obstacles.

There are some today who with their superior knowledge criticize and even
ridicule those early missionaries. They made many mistakes, we are told. They
held to a theology that is outmoded.

They attacked the pagan faiths indiscriminately, without appreciating the good
features to be found in them. They sometimes became dictatorial. And according
to modern standards they committed many other errors.

Yet at the same time some of these critics, alarmed at the confusion,
uncertainty and lack of real effectiveness today, have urgently called for a
re-examination of the basic principles of missions. And of course that involves
motivation. But any amount of study is not enough. Study can clarify motives,
but it can’t generate them. And the missionary, to be effective, must have
something fundamental, something deeply compelling to thrust him out - something
such as what the apostle Paul experienced when he wrote, “Woe is unto me, if I
preach not the gospel!” In the experience of most successful missionaries there
are two motives that seem to stand out as more compelling than any others. First
is a keen realization of what we have in CHRIST. It is the consciousness that in
CHRIST we have what the whole world desperately needs. We have a message and a
life so eternally valuable that the whole world ought to have them. When a man
is sure that the way of CHRIST is not only a better way but is the only good
way; when his experience of CHRIST has transformed and ennobled his own life;
when he faces heathenism frankly, realizing its awfulness, but at the same time
realizes that it can be changed by the same Saviour who changed his life; he
cannot help feeling the constraint of missions.

Such a motive, such an inner constraint, is not only enough to send him to the
field; it will also sustain him in the midst of difficulties and discouragement.

There is a second motive, closely related to the first. It is simply the command
of CHRIST. Of course, for one who has never acknowledged the Lordship of CHRIST
His command has no force. Neither does it have much force in the life of one who
has never learned to obey. But the one who wholeheartedly has submitted to the
authority of CHRIST, who finds pleasure in seeking to do His will, or even feels
strongly the sense of duty to his Lord, finds that this motive is a strong one.
It may even be sufficient of itself. No other reason is needed, such a one
decides, for the Lord himself has commanded, and it is for His servants to obey.

These two motives have generally proved to be more compelling than any others.
But we don’t mean that there aren’t any others. There are many others. In fact,
it is doubtful if any of us can completely analyze his motives in all their
complexities.

It is difficult to know just how much of the spirit of adventure enters into the
decision of some young people to be missionaries. Others have been led to think
that full surrender to the Lord necessarily means foreign missionary service.
Sometimes a young man wants to serve the Lord, but he doesn’t think he can
qualify as a preacher or a teacher. So he thinks he may find in foreign service
a place for the abilities that couldn’t be used at home. Where missions send out
short-term missionaries for teaching, some may look at it as an opportunity for
getting some experience. In the case of missionaries’ children, they sometimes
simply follow in the footsteps of their parents, doing a work with which they
are already somewhat familiar. And we might add that some young people are moved
by an appeal to youthful idealism and by an altruistic desire to help humanity.
For young people are still idealists.

These and many other motives may or may not play a part in sending a missionary
to the field.

Even where they do, they do not need to be condemned. What we need to recognize
is that they are inferior motives. They don’t have the powerful drive or the
sustaining force of the two principal motives. At best their place is secondary.

Now it is the motives that determine the aims of foreign missions. The man who
is moved only by compassion for human suffering will feel that his ministry is
done when he relieves that suffering. His aim is to heal sick bodies, to feed
the hungry, to give shelter to the homeless, to stop unjust oppression. But the
one who is moved by a sense of obligation to make known the Gospel goes much
deeper. It has meant life to him. His aim is to see that Gospel brings the same
life to others in other lands. In greater detail, we may say that the true
missionary of CHRIST has one great aim, in two phases: to witness to CHRIST in
such a way that (1) men will put their faith in Him, and that (2) the Church of
CHRIST will be established and built up. This aim is entirely spiritual, as it
should be. Did not CHRIST say, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his
righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you?” (Matthew 6:33).
And the aim includes both evangelism and teaching.

Notice that we do not say that the one aim is “to preach the Gospel.” Such a
statement is as shallow as it is inaccurate. The missionary cannot “deliver his
soul” by delivering the message, regardless of results. He is more than a herald
who merely repeats the words he is told to repeat. The missionary is a witness -
a witness who is deeply concerned that others shall believe his testimony and
render a favorable verdict.

Preaching is important in missionary work. It is a prime way for presenting the
message and seeking to persuade men to accept it. But the preaching must be in
terms that men can understand; it must be with the sincerity born of experience;
it must show a warm interest in those to whom it is directed. And preaching is
only one way of witnessing. There are many others.

We have said that the true missionary has one great aim. This does not mean that
he may not have many other related aims. It simply means that the others will be
subordinated to this one principal aim. For instance, he will heal the sick and
feed the hungry, but not as an end in itself. It will be as an expression of the
life of CHRIST which dwells in him. He will teach the illiterate, that they may
come to a better understanding of CHRIST. He will introduce new ideas, new
practices, perhaps in a few cases a new civilization. But it won’t be because he
thinks these things are in themselves of prime importance. It will be because
they are necessary to the full expression of the life of the Saviour. All his
purposes will center in the one great purpose, and from it they will all derive
their significance.

Perhaps the greatest weakness in Christian missions today comes from a deviation
from this one great aim. Our mission schools continue to bear the name of
Christian long after they have lost sight of any distinctively Christian
objective. Our social services become so involved in the physical and the
economic that the spiritual is omitted or given scant attention. We become
interested in promoting our mission, our denomination, our movement, and forget
the Saviour and His Church which He bought with His own blood. We content
ourselves with making modest progress toward some minor objective, not noticing
how far short we fall of the main goal. Even when we don’t actually turn aside,
we tie ourselves up with trivialities.

GOD grant us a clear vision of our objective!

~ end of chapter 7 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 08 - WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY
========================================================================

CHAPTER EIGHT WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?

UPON WHOM does the responsibility for missionary work rest? Up to this point we
have not considered such a question. We have not differentiated between the
obligation of the individual and the obligation of the Church. But just who is
responsible? Is missions the responsibility only of those individuals who feel a
special interest in such a cause? Or should missions be considered the
responsibility of the Church as a whole? Sometimes we have acted as if it were
the enterprise of just a select few, some of whom have gone as missionaries,
while the others volunteered to support them in their work. Is this as it should
be? This individualistic attitude is perhaps more prominent today than ever
before. You can see it in the large number of independent missionaries who try
to start and carry on a work unconnected with any denomination or Church group.
You can see it in the rapidly growing number of independent missions. They get
their support from interested individuals in a large number of churches, but
they are not in any way subject to the control of those churches.

You can see it, too, in the attitude of many young people who offer themselves
for missionary service. They look on it only as the fulfilling of a personal
obligation. They have no thought that they might be called to represent a larger
fellowship, the Church. In modern political terminology, they think of
themselves as “personal representatives” of CHRIST rather than “ambassadors” of
CHRIST and His Church. Are they right? When we look to the New Testament for the
answer, we find two answers. Rather, we should say that the Scriptures teach
that both the individual and the Church are responsible. And there is no clear
marking out of the responsibility of each one. In a way, it is like the
responsibility of several men who have signed a note for a mutual friend. When
the note is due, if the man can’t pay it himself, the creditor can demand
payment of all the signers jointly, or of anyone of them individually. That is,
they may all get together and pay the note, each one giving his share; or anyone
of them may be made to pay the full amount. Each one who signs the note makes
himself responsible for it all; though if they are all honest and able, each one
will give his part.Now when CHRIST gave His great commission, He didn’t indicate
exactly how it was to be carried out. He gave it to the group of disciples who
met with Him after His resurrection, and it seems clear that He expected each
one to feel his responsibility to witness for his Lord. Yet from the beginning
the Church as a body looked upon the extension of the work as a part of its
corporate responsibility. So Philip preached first in Samaria on his own
initiative; but the Church sent its representatives to confirm and establish the
work. In Antioch the SPIRIT had already called Barnabas and Saul to missionary
service; but the Church was told to send them forth, and they reported to it on
their return. As Christians, we all have been given a great task to perform by
our Lord and Saviour. So long as that task has not been completed, it is a lien
against each one of us for which He may hold us personally accountable. Yet it
is also a lien against the Church. It is the Church’s task; but it is also yours
and mine. We are all responsible. THE CHURCH’S RESPONSIBILITY In speaking of the
Church’s responsibility, we are thinking particularly of the local congregation.

Under present conditions of missionary work, the local Church, whether it is
denominational or not, has certain rather definite obligations to fulfill.

It is just here that a very basic weakness in the missionary enterprise shows
up. It is that the local Church often is not aware of any such missionary
obligations. Or if it is aware of such obligations it chooses to give them very
little attention. In the denominational Church a quota may be assigned for the
support of missions of that denomination. But small as the quota may be, it
often is not met. In the independent Church there is no official mission board
to assign a quota. So the individual congregation may choose to do something
about missions or not, just as it sees fit. In either case, what the Church does
will depend largely on its leadership. It is characteristic of American
Protestant churches that their affairs are generally managed by a handful of
people. This is true even where they are most democratically organized. The
average Church member seldom does more than attend some of the Church services
and make a small contribution. Only an inspiring and constructive leadership can
get him to take a larger share in the Church’s business. But Church leaders are
not often well informed in missionary matters. Neither do they have much of an
interest in affairs that are not under their own control. The pastor himself has
usually had little training in the line of missions, even in those of his own
denomination. They don’t usually present it to him in the seminary as a part of
his essential ministry. It is one of the extras, something you can engage in
after the local needs are fully met. Even the Ladies’ Missionary Society is
often busy with other things besides missions because it doesn’t have strong
missionary leadership.

Yet the world mission of witnessing to CHRIST among all people is the one great
charge that the Saviour gave to His Church after His resurrection. The Church
really exists for two purposes, witnessing and fellowship. And all too often we
forget the first.Let us present here four definite responsibilities that pertain
to the local Church.

First is the responsibility to recognize that missions is a part of the Church’s
essential ministry. It is not a question of whether we should have home missions
or foreign missions. That doesn’t enter into it. Instead, it is a question of
whether the Church is going to minister to its own little group or extend its
ministry to those who are outside. It is a question of a self-centered ministry
or a ministry that looks beyond self to the needs of others.

We don’t need to worry about the artificial distinction between home missions
and foreign missions. The Church that feels keenly the need to reach out and
minister to lost souls in its own community can never stop there. A
compassionate interest in others isn’t even stopped by national boundaries. Once
we turn our look outward, “the field is the world.” The same thing is true about
the Church that is deeply concerned for foreign missions. It can’t be blind to
the needs on its own doorstep. That is, if it really is concerned for the souls
of men and is not merely attracted to missions by the romance of strange lands
and people. This first responsibility is basic. It is the acknowledgment that
the Church doesn’t exist for itself.

It is not a social club. It is not a haven of rest. If it is to fulfill its
divine purpose it must be missionary. And the first step in fulfilling that
purpose is to acknowledge it - to look at it as a duty that must be carried out.

Now when a Church recognizes that missions is a part of its essential ministry,
it is responsible to give to missions the same careful, prayerful attention that
it gives to any other part of its work.

It shouldn’t relegate missions to some missionary society within the Church as
if it didn’t concern the whole body of believers. It should plan for missions.
It should bring missionary problems to the Church prayer meeting and to the
governing board. It should give missions a definite place in the Church budget.

Too many churches don’t have any definite missionary program, even where they
are “missionary-minded.” One such Church comes to mind, which often opened its
doors to missionary speakers. The Church always made a generous donation to
every missionary speaker, at the time he spoke. But in the several years of my
acquaintance with it, the Church never took on the regular support of any
missionary or mission work. Under such circumstances missions comes to be looked
at not as a responsibility but as a pleasurable pastime.

We need to get down to business in missions. Our churches need to stop dabbling
and start working. Only so can we meet our God-given responsibility.

Perhaps we ought to say another word about praying for missions. “Prayerful
attention” means more than just praying about how much to give. It means more
than praying, “GOD bless the missionaries.” It means praying for the work that
is going on. It means praying for those who do the work. It means having such a
real concern for it all that our concern will express itself in intercessory
prayer.

We don’t need to go into the values of intercessory prayer. It is enough to know
that missionaries themselves count heavily on it. They know that their work
alone can never accomplish its purpose. GOD must work. They know, too, that GOD
is not reluctant to hear their requests. But they know at the same time that GOD
wants Church and missionaries to be united in this task. In prayer they can
express some of that spiritual union. The third responsibility of the local
Church is one that most people think of first. Unfortunately too many of them
seem to think it is the only responsibility. It is the task of providing money
and other material support for missions. It is an important task, but in
carrying it out there are several errors that ought to be avoided.

First, spend the Lord’s money for missions as carefully as you would for
redecorating the Church or for a new Church organ. Many a Church pays less
attention to the distributing of its missionary funds than it does to the choice
of a new hymnal. The Church should know as much about the causes for which its
missionary money goes as if each member were investing his personal funds. We
should never be less careful of the Lord’s money than of our own.

Second, don’t give only for the support of individual missionaries or special
projects. It is good to have personal contact with individual missionaries,
especially if they have come from your Church. It is good, also, to have at
least a share in their personal support. The same thing is true of special
projects, which do have a way of stimulating people to give. But don’t stop
there. The reason is this. Who is going to pay the many other expenses of
carrying on the work? Who will pay for the house the missionary lives in? Who
will provide him with the literature and other supplies he needs? Who will pay
for his travel, or even for the cost of getting his salary to him at his remote
post? Who will pay for the scores of other expenses that are necessary for the
carrying on of this mission? Don’t forget these needs.

Third, when you do support a missionary, don’t feel that your support entitles
you to dictate his private life. Support him because you believe he is a
faithful representative of the Lord, and do it as unto the Lord. Your
stewardship ended when you gave the gift; his began. He is responsible to the
Lord, not to you, for using the money wisely. Just as you were responsible to
the Lord while it was in your hands.

Finally, a fourth and very important responsibility of the local Church to
missions is the provision of missionary candidates. Missionaries must come from
the local churches. Actually, missionary work in a foreign land is to a large
degree a reflection of the spiritual life of the churches at home. To a large
degree, we say, but not entirely. It sometimes happens that our missionaries got
their deepest spiritual impressions away from the home Church. It may have been
in a Bible camp, a Christian youth group, a campus Christian organization, or in
a Bible training school. But in a general way our foreign missions reflect our
Christianity at home. For this reason it is important for the local Church to
have a definite program of missionary education. In many of our churches there
are untapped resources of manpower for the mission fields, simply because the
young people know nothing of the work, have never been faced with the challenge
of missions. It is the Church’s business to challenge them, to turn their hearts
in that direction.

~ end of chapter 8 ~


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 09 - THE CHRISTIAN'S RESPONSIBILITY - THE MISSIONARY CALL
========================================================================

CHAPTER NINE THE CHRISTIAN’S RESPONSIBILITY? THE MISSIONARY CALL AS A MEMBER of
the local Church, every Christian has a share in the responsibilities of the
Church to missions. But there are some other responsibilities that are purely
individual. In fact, each individual’s participation in the missionary program
of the Church will depend on his personal response to the appeal of CHRIST. The
Christian’s greatest responsibility is to do just what Saul did on the way to
Damascus, to say.

“Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” Until you take this step, it is useless to
talk? about any other. You can’t ease a troubled conscience by offering to
support a representative on the mission field if you ought to be there yourself.
If you are not surrendered to go to the mission field for CHRIST, you are not
surrendered to CHRIST! But only a small part of those who do surrender will
actually be sent. Not every volunteer is acceptable for this work. The
requirements of missionary service are such that many of those who are willing
to go will have to be ruled out. Still, it is the ones who have such a willing
heart that CHRIST can use in every kind of Christian work. Many of our most
effective Christian workers at home are those who once wanted to go out as
missionaries but were prevented. This brings up the matter of the missionary
call. THE MISSIONARY CALL When a young person asks about the missionary call, he
usually means, “How can I tell whether the Lord wants me on the foreign mission
field?”

He may have some interest in Scriptural and philosophic definitions of a call,
but it is the answer to this question that he really wants. It is this answer
that concerns him, his life and his actions.

He will listen patiently to our generalizations if we can make him see just how
they apply to his particular case. Otherwise he will turn away in disappointment
and perhaps wonder if we really know the answer. Or he may wonder if there is
any such thing as being sure of the Lord’s will in the matter.

Perhaps his wondering is fully justified. I have heard explanations of the
missionary call, and read others, that impressed me as being rationalizations.
They seemed to be attempts to provide some sort of doctrinal basis for a course
of action already taken, whose real explanation was only vaguely understood.

Sometimes the one doing the explaining has a fixed idea of what the missionary
call ought to be.

Then in the light of that idea he tries to view his own actions as a fulfillment
of the call. He may have an uncomfortable feeling that his own call has not
conformed to the set pattern. Yet he hesitates to acknowledge it, even to
himself. After all, it is not an easy matter to analyze our own experience in
retrospect and avoid reading into it some of the things we think should have
been there.

There are other explanations of the call that, while they do touch certain
important aspects, usually leave the young Christian still unsatisfied. “A need;
a consciousness of that need; and an ability to fill that need” is perhaps as
good a definition as one can put in so few words. Yet it seems to imply that
human need alone is the call. It leaves out the Lord Himself and His relation to
the one who is called.

Neither does it provide any basis for deciding which of many needs at home and
abroad should have the prior claim. Even if we say, “Go where the need is
greatest,” the matter is still uncertain. Can we measure need just by the number
of needy people? Are the savages of New Guinea more needy than the cultured
Japanese? Are all foreign fields more needy than any home field?

Perhaps what we have to say may not succeed better than others in clarifying the
matter. Yet it is a sincere attempt to treat the matter objectively, keeping in
view the authority and the teachings of the Scriptures while acknowledging the
validity and the value of Christian experience.

Before we can give a clear answer to the question, “What is the missionary call”
there are some false ideas obstructing the way that we must remove. We don’t
know how some of these ideas began, but they have been repeated so often and are
so little challenged that people accept them almost as if they were axiomatic.

First is the idea that we must have some special divine call to go beyond the
borders of our own country as CHRIST’s witnesses to the lost. That is, we may
hear CHRIST’s call to devote our life to Christian service, and so long as we
don’t leave the limits of the United States we may labor anywhere from Maine to
California just as we see the need and find the opportunity. But let someone
suggest to us that there is an even greater need, and perhaps an open door, just
beyond the national boundary, and immediately we begin to talk about not having
a “call” to foreign missionary service. It is as if we thought the boundaries of
the nations were established by GOD and that a special divine passport must be
issued - or rather, that a special divine command must be given, before we dare
cross over to the other side with the Gospel. We don’t hesitate to move three
thousand miles from Miami to Seattle at the invitation of a Church; but to go a
few hours across to Cuba we must first have a special “call”!

Merely to bring such an idea under scruting is to refute it. For where can we
find any basis to support it? Certainly not in the Scriptures. The Scriptures
present the whole world as the field, with no division into “home” and “foreign”
fields. Philip preached the Gospel in Samaria, and the refugees from Jerusalem
planted the Church in Gentile Antioch, with no thought of waiting for a special
call to those regions. The refugees were fleeing from the first wave of
persecution, and wherever they went they spoke of the Saviour. The idea of a
special divine call to minister beyond the borders of Judea and Galilee does not
seem to have entered their heads. They were witnesses to everyone everywhere. Of
course those who first established the Church in Antioch were not what we would
call today “full-time” workers. It may be well to look at those who took the
leadership there later and gave full time to a Christian ministry.

First mentioned is Barnabas, who already had some prominence in the work in
Jerusalem. It was the Jerusalem Church that sent Barnabas to Antioch. They had
heard of the work there and apparently believed that Barnabas would be just the
man to look into the situation and establish the new believers in the faith.
Barnabas went, found a need for his services, and decided to stay. But Barnabas
saw that another man could be used there, too. He remembered Saul, whom he had
first introduced to the believers in Jerusalem and who later had had to go home
to Tarsus, in Asia Minor. We don’t know what Saul was doing at the time, but
Tarsus was not too far from Antioch. So Barnabas went there to get Saul and
bring him to help out in the new Church.

We may well assume that both Barnabas and Saul waited on the Lord before
agreeing to go to Antioch. But it is perfectly clear, and the Scriptures plainly
state, that the initiative in both instances came from other men. The Jerusalem
Church “sent” Barnabas, and Barnabas “brought” Saul. Not a word, not even a hint
is given that any special divine call, any unusual spiritual experience was
needed to overcome their reluctance to leave their own land as ministers of
CHRIST. True, Barnabas was a native of Cyprus and Saul of Cilicia, but Antioch
was still a foreign field to them both. As for the other “prophets and teachers”
in Antioch, “Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen,
which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch,” it is evident that at least
Lucius and Manaen were not from Antioch and so could be called foreign
missionaries. But there is no indication of the way in which they had come into
the work there.

They may have been among the refugees. Or they may have been among the prophets
mentioned in Acts 11:27 who came down from Jerusalem at the same time as Agabus.
At any rate, the fact that they were ministering in a foreign field didn’t call
for any special comment. In all the New Testament account, there is only one
instance when a national or geographic boundary seemed to require a special call
before the missionaries would decide to pass it. That was on Paul’s second
missionary journey, when he and his companions reached Troas. There they got a
remarkable revelation of GOD’s will that they should go on over into Europe.
This unusual experience, generally named the “Macedonian call,” is often held to
be the typical missionary call. Even some otherwise careful missionary writers
and speakers have plainly called it such. They have tried to show how it applies
to the situation young Christians face today, when they are confronted with the
challenge of foreign missionary service. They encourage young people to look for
some such experience as Paul had there at Troas, before applying for missionary
service. And when the experience does not come, the young people are confused
and discouraged. This is really the second of the false ideas that keeps us from
a proper understanding of the missionary call. We need to realize that the
“Macedonian Call” was positively not the missionary call! It wasn’t even a
typical call of any sort! It was an unusual experience, and all the more
striking because it was so unusual. Perhaps it had to be striking to accomplish
its purpose at that time and in the hearts of those men.

It is not at all unreasonable to suppose that on other occasions, even today,
GOD may make use of such unusual means to call men to one task or another. Yet
in the New Testament this case was the exception rather than the rule. And in
Christian experience today such occurrences are still exceptional.

We have said that the “Macedonian call” was not the missionary call. Even a
superficial reading of the preceding chapters in the Acts should make this
abundantly clear. Paul was already a missionary; he had been a missionary for
some years. Actually this incident took place in the midst of his second great
missionary tour. He was already in a foreign land when the vision came. And it
came, not to call him and his companions to missionary service, but to call them
to extend their operations beyond Asia Minor to Europe. If we can remove from
our thinking the idea that this was a typical call to foreign missionary
service, we shall clear the way for a better understanding of what such a call
really is. A third misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up is the notion
that the missionary call necessarily is associated with some definite field.
Some young people are greatly perturbed because, while they are sure that the
Lord wants them to go forth as foreign missionaries, they find it difficult to
know precisely to what field they should go. Here again the common idea is
inconsistent with the Scriptural examples. When Barnabas and Saul started out on
their first missionary journey together, they knew the work they were to do, for
the SPIRIT had said to the Church, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work
whereunto I have called them.” But it is doubtful that they knew just in what
places they were to carry on this work. Note carefully their itinerary. Cyprus
was nearby, it was unevangelized, and it was the homeland of Barnabas. So it was
natural that they should go there first. From western Cyprus the next logical
step was the mainland of Asia Minor. Here the evangelization continued until
they reached the border of Paul’s own province of Cilicia.

Presumably he had carried on work there before going to Antioch. To establish
better the work they had done, they now retraced their steps and finally
returned to Antioch with their mission completed. Maybe the trip had been
planned ahead of time, but various details, such as Mark’s leaving them when
they entered Asia Minor, seem to show otherwise. But whether or not they knew
just where they were going on that first trip, Paul certainly didn’t know in
advance the itinerary of his second journey. He started out to revisit the
churches they had established before. But soon he was trying other doors.
Finding some of them temporarily closed, he pushed on in the only forward
direction that was open, until he reached Troas. From there, the Macedonian
vision gave him a clear enough call to the next place. But Macedonia was only a
stepping-stone, for without any other vision Paul moved on westward and
southward into Greece until he came to the city of Corinth. On the return from
Corinth, Paul visited the province of Asia. The Lord had forbidden him to preach
there earlier on this same tour. He spent only a brief time there in the city of
Ephesus, but later on he returned for a much more extended ministry.

Paul’s great trip to Rome was not the result of any vision or special
revelation. In writing to the brethren there before he went, he said that he had
desired for many years to make the trip and see them. Since his apostolic
ministry had now been completed where he was, he would soon be ready to visit
Rome on his way to Spain (Romans 15:23).

So, as we review the career of the great missionary to the Gentiles, we see that
he seldom enjoyed a special revelation to direct his movements. Only twice after
his conversion do we hear of such an experience. Once was when the Lord told him
to leave Jerusalem, since his mission was to be to the Gentiles (Acts 22:17-21).
He was told to leave but wasn’t told where to go. The other occasion was when he
received the Macedonian vision. Here only the important initial step was
revealed. In fact, he had only two alternatives - either to go on across to
Europe or to go back along the road he had come. It was not a question of choice
of field but a question of advance or consolidation. And the Lord directed
advance. To sum up: (1) a special divine call is not necessary to witness for
CHRIST beyond the national border; (2) the striking vision that Paul received at
Troas, the so-called “Macedonian call,” was not his missionary call, nor is it
typical of such a call; and (3) the call to missionary service is not
necessarily associated with a definite field at home or abroad.

It might seem from this that we have completely ruled out the idea of a call.
But this is not so.

We have merely tried to clear the ground in order to construct a more Scriptural
and sound doctrine of the missionary call. The call is not lacking, in fact it
is fundamental. No one should go to any mission field without a sense of call if
he expects to enjoy GOD’s blessing on his ministry. But to wait or look for an
experience that at best is quite unusual is to open the way for disappointment
and frustration.

There are two aspects of the missionary call, one general and one particular.
For clearness of thinking we usually do well to distinguish the two. We must
recognize also that the first is fundamental to the second. The general
missionary call is synonymous with the “great commission.” It is expressed in
various ways: “Go ye therefore and teach all nations... Go ye into all the world
and preach the gospel... As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you... Ye
shall be witnesses unto me... unto the uttermost parts of the earth.” But the
message is the same. It is the call of CHRIST to those who follow Him to go out
and witness for Him everywhere. It includes all of His disciples; not one is
omitted from its scope. The Christian who fails to bear witness to his Saviour
is disobedient to this call, which is meant for him. This call is general
because it includes all Christians as prospective missionaries. But it is
general also because it includes all unbelievers as the missionary field. It is
not a question of home missions or foreign missions, of city missions or
missions on the frontier. This is a call to be CHRIST’s ambassadors to lost
sinners without regard to the places where they may be found.

There is no use trying to talk about a special call to the foreign mission field
until the matter of this general missionary call is settled. It is just as
useless as it would be to discuss the call to missionary service before the
issue of putting one’s faith in the Saviour has been settled. It has been well
said that a trip across the ocean doesn’t make a missionary. But neither does
failure to go abroad keep a man from being a missionary.

Lest you should be tempted to discount the importance of this general missionary
call, take time to observe how similar it is to your call to salvation. In fact,
if you look carefully through the New Testament you will find that the word
“call” is most often used in connection with salvation rather than with service.

Note that the call to salvation is a general call issued to all sinners. It is a
call to “whosoever will.” Occasionally the Lord speaks to an individual and
says, “Follow me”; but usually His invitation is “Come unto me all ye that labor
and are heavy laden.” Wasn’t that the kind of call you answered when you came to
CHRIST to receive His salvation? Wasn’t it a general invitation you accepted,
but one that you realized was sincerely intended to include you? Did you wait
for a special divine invitation, an audible voice to call out your name? Did you
wait to be drafted?

Clearly the general call to salvation is enough when the sinner hears it and
realizes it is meant for him. But the call is not complete, is not effectual,
until the sinner responds “Lord, I believe!” In the same way the general call to
witness for CHRIST is enough when the believer hears it and realizes that it is
meant for him. But to make it effectual he too must say, “Here am I, LORD; send
me!” When GOD calls and man responds, then the divine call is complete.

Actually, for foreign missionary service as for any other, it is not essential
to have any other call than this general call. CHRIST’s missionaries are those
who have a deep and compelling sense of their obligation to obey His command and
make known His salvation to all men.

Many missionaries are mentioned in the New Testament besides the apostles, some
by name, as Titus and Apollos and Epaphras; and others anonymously, as the
Thessalonian believers. But so far as we have information, the majority carried
on their ministry in obedience to this general call. With the living CHRIST in
their hearts, they were constrained to be His witnesses everywhere.

Still, there is an individual aspect to the call, and in some cases a separate
individual call. We have spoken of the response to CHRIST’s general commission.
This of course is an individual response. No one can answer for another, not
even a father for his son, much as he may want to.

It is in this response that we see clearly the hand of the HOLY SPIRIT. He who
opens the eyes of sinners to behold the Saviour and moves them to accept His
invitation to receive life in Him, is the same one who illumines the
understanding of the saints and opens their ears to the call to make the
Saviour?known in every land. The way in which He does this we may understand as
little in the one case as in the other, but it is just as effectual. “Whereas I
was blind, now I see,” may be all the testimony we can give. But it is enough.It
is in this individual aspect of the missionary call that we run into the
question of fields of service. Shall it be the foreign field or the home field?
If the foreign field, which one? Such questions are constantly asked and should
be answered.

Hardly ever are they answered with a vision or some other such striking
experience. But we shouldn’t think that this is impossible. Still the normal way
is otherwise. In this matter friends may counsel and preachers exhort, and
missionary speakers may even resort to scolding. But the final decision is
between you and GOD. Sometimes, in order to see the matter in its proper
relationships, we might do well to drop the word “call” and speak of this as a
matter of guidance. There may be a special call, but more often the young
Christian is simply waiting to be shown where he is to serve. The general
principles of guidance certainly apply here: a recognition of the need of
guidance, a willingness to be led, a deliberate renunciation of self-interest, a
close walk with GOD so as to be sensitive to His wishes, as well as a constant
use of the Word of GOD and earnest prayer.

CHRIST’s own command to “look on the fields” should lead us to contemplate their
needs and feel the compassion that such needs should inspire. A careful study of
the fields, such as William Carey made, may open the way for GOD’s guidance.
Listening to missionaries from various fields is helpful. At first it may seem
confusing, because of the vastness of the task and the needs. But after a time
it often happens that one of those fields begins to stand out in your
consciousness as the place where GOD can use you to the greatest advantage.

Consider carefully the question whether you should serve CHRIST in the home
country or on some foreign field. To think that unless GOD calls you specially
to some foreign land you ought to take up work at home is the worst possible
attitude to take. There are too many Christian workers who have drifted into
some position in the homeland simply because they have not been called to
anything else.

How do you dare to stand in any pulpit as a minister of CHRIST without the clear
conviction that He has called you there? The call of the pulpit committee or of
the Church is no substitute for CHRIST’s call. What makes you think that it is
any less necessary to feel an overpowering divine compulsion to give your life
to a ministry in Middletown, U.S.A, than in a Congo forest?

If a call is necessary for the one, it is just as necessary for the other.
Should you serve at home or abroad? Don’t expect a satisfactory answer to this
question until you have answered first a couple of others. Are you sure GOD
wants you in full-time service for Him? Your answer to this question may mean
service on the foreign field; it often does. But perhaps just as often the Lord
calls a man to his ministry first, and perhaps even gives him a time of service
at home, before He sends him abroad as His messenger to other peoples. At all
events it is important to know whether you should be set apart exclusively for
Christian service.

Too many of us take it for granted that full consecration necessarily means
going into full-time Christian ministry. Such an idea tends in the same
direction as the idea held in the Middle Ages that for a really devout life one
had to withdraw from the world and enter some monastery. It may take out of the
workaday world those very elements that are needed to keep it from ever
increasing corruption. It fosters the all too commonly held notion that
“business and religion don’t mix.” As a matter of fact, there is no good reason
why a laborer or a businessman may not be as earnest a Christian witness and as
truly spiritual as any minister. Many are. But even if you are sure that the
Lord wants you in fulltime service, there is still another question to be
answered. Are you ready to surrender your own will to His and gladly do whatever
He wants you to do? Such a surrender is not easy. Neither is it as complete
oftentimes as we suppose at the moment. Yet, is it right to expect GOD to lead
you to the field of His choice, when you have already determined in your own
heart where you want to go? If you really want His guidance you have to be ready
to put yourself in His hands and gladly follow His directions, wherever He may
lead. Does selfish ambition enter into your plans, the desire for recognition
and praise from other Christians? It is better to please GOD than men; it is
even more satisfying to your own soul. Are you afraid of privations, and do you
shrink from a venture that means a radical change in your way of living and
brings you into contact with strange, unfamiliar people and circumstances? Your
Saviour Himself has promised to be with you all the days until the end - if you
go! That promise is connected with the command to go! On the other hand, there
are some for whom other fields always appear greener than those close at home.
There is for some a purely human attraction in strange lands and people. They
need to ask themselves, “Can I be happy to stay at home and minister in an
unromantic field, if that is where CHRIST wants me most?” For some the decision
to stay is fully as difficult as for others the decision to go. But the call to
stay may be just as definite and the results of obedience just as joyful.

Now if you have answered these two preliminary - questions in the affirmative,
if you are sure the Lord wants you to dedicate your whole life to His service
and are confident that your greatest desire is to fulfill His will, whatever
that will may be and wherever it may lead, the main question becomes much easier
to answer. Not that anyone can answer it for you. You should not accept their
answers even when they urge them on you. This is between you and GOD. It is He
who must guide you. But it may be of help to know how at times He has led
others. If the testimonies of those who have experienced salvation are honored
of the Lord in leading others to an enjoyment of that same experience, then the
testimonies of those whom the Lord has called and blessed in missionary service
may be used in revealing GOD’s ways of guidance to other puzzled young
Christians.

We shall give some of these testimonies in the next chapter.

~ end of chapter 9 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 10 - THE MISSIONARY CALL - TESTIMONIES
========================================================================

CHAPTER TEN THE MISSIONARY CALL TESTIMONIES

WE WISH WE KNEW about the missionary calls of all of our great missionaries. It
would help us to see more clearly the many ways in which the Lord leads men into
missionary work. But we don’t. Only now and then do we get a clear picture of
how the Lord dealt with one of them.

Sometimes we have it in his own words. Sometimes we have to depend on the
accuracy of his biographer. In this chapter we are going to talk about seven
great missionaries. They all lived in the past century, so their works have
stood the test of time. Four of them were British and three were American. (The
day had not yet come when American missionaries outnumbered all others.) They
went to several fields in Africa and the Orient. And the information we have
about their calls is fairly clear. We shall give their own words when we can.

DAVID LIVINGSTONE The very name Livingstone spells Africa. No missionary is
better known today. Very few ever captured the imagination of their own day to
such an extent.

Yet Livingstone did not at first intend to go to Africa. In fact, he didn’t plan
to be a missionary at all. Not that he was opposed to missions. He thought every
Christian ought to be a soul-winner.

It ought to be his chief desire and aim. But when it came to foreign missions,
Livingstone’s idea was that he would give money for it. He would give everything
he earned above what he needed to live. But that wasn’t GOD’s idea. One day
Livingstone read an item that changed his whole purpose.

Dr. Karl Glitzlaff, brilliant and devout missionary pioneer, had traveled up and
down the coasts of East Asia all the way from Siam to Korea. Now he was pleading
for missionaries for the great empire of China. And when Livingstone thought on
those millions of Chinese without CHRIST, and on the lack of suitable workers to
give them the Gospel, he decided to prepare and offer himself.For China, did we
say? Then how did he get to Africa? The Opium War did it. Livingstone prepared
to be a medical missionary in China, and the London Missionary Society accepted
him. But before he could sail, the war closed the door. Now what should he do?
They suggested the West Indies. But he didn’t think his medical training would
be so useful there. At this point Robert Moffat entered the picture. The great
South Africa missionary was at home in Britain speaking about the work in that
dark land.

“I had occasion to call for someone at Mrs. Sewell’s, a boarding-house for young
missionaries in Aldersgate street, where Livingstone lived. I observed soon that
this young man was interested in my story, that he would sometimes come quietly
and ask me a question or two, and that he was always desirous to know where I
was to speak in public, and attended on these occasions.

By-and-by he asked me whether he would do for Africa. I said I believed he
would, if he would not go to an old station, but would advance to unoccupied
ground, specifying the vast plain to the north, where I had sometimes seen, in
the morning sun, the smoke of a thousand villages, where no missionary had ever
been. At last Livingstone said, “What is the use of my waiting for the end of
this abominable Opium War? I will go at once to Africa!” The Directors
concurred, and Africa became his sphere.”

JOHN G. PATON When an author wants to write a thrilling missionary story for
young people, he is very likely to turn to the life of John G. Paton. Not many
can compare with it. Paton went to work among cannibals in the New Hebrides
islands of the South Pacific. He lived a long life and an exciting one. And he
found the time to tell about it.

Paton began as a city missionary in his native Scotland. He seemed to be doing
well, but he says, “Happy in my work as I felt, and successful by the blessing
of GOD, yet I continually heard, and chiefly during my last years in the
Divinity Hall, the wail of the perishing Heathen in the South Seas; and I saw
that few were caring for them, while I well knew that many would be ready to
take up my work in Calton and carry it forward perhaps with more efficiency than
myself.

Without revealing the state of my mind to any person, this was the supreme
subject of my daily meditation and prayer; and this also led me to enter upon
those medical studies, in which I purposed taking the full course; but at the
close of my third year, an incident occurred, which led me at once to offer
myself for the Foreign Mission field. The Reformed Presbyterian Church of
Scotland, in which I had been brought up, had been advertising for another
Missionary to join John Inglis in his grand work in the New Hebrides.

Dr. Bates, the excellent convener of the Heathen Missions Committee, was deeply
grieved, because for two years their appeal had failed.”

He says further:”At length, the Synod, after much prayer and consultation, felt
the claims of the Heathen so urgently pressed upon them by the Lord’s repeated
calls, that they resolved to cast lots, to discover whether GOD would thus
select any Minister to be relieved from his home-charge, and designated as a
Missionary to the South Seas. Each member of the Synod, as I was informed,
agreed to hand in, after solemn appeal to GOD, the names of the three best
qualified in his esteem for such a work, and he who had the clear majority was
to be loosed from his congregation, and to proceed to the Mission field - or the
first and second highest, if two could be secured.

Hearing this debate, and feeling an intense interest in these most unusual
proceedings, I remember yet the hushed solemnity of the prayer before the names
were handed in. I remember the strained silence that held the Assembly while the
scrutinizers retired to examine the papers; and I remember how tears blinded my
eyes when they returned to announce that the result was so indecisive, that it
was clear that the Lord had not in that way provided a missionary. The cause was
once again solemnly laid before GOD in prayer, and a cloud of sadness appeared
to fall over all the Synod. The Lord kept saying within me, “Since none better
qualified can be got, rise and offer yourself!” Almost overpowering was the
impulse to answer aloud, “Here am I, send me!” But I was dreadfully afraid of
mistaking my own emotions for the will of GOD. So I resolved to make it a
subject of close deliberation and prayer for a few days longer, and to look at
the proposal from every possible aspect. From every aspect at which I could look
the whole facts in the face, the voice within me sounded like a voice from GOD.

JAMES CHALMERS

“Tamate,” the natives called him. “The Great Heart of New Guinea,” said Robert
Louis Stevenson. And certainly no one had a wilder field, nor one that called
for a greater heart. His first ten years in the islands farther east were tame
in comparison with the years on the southeast coast of New Guinea. He lived
continually in the shadow of death. A man’s man. And, unlike Paton, he was
finally killed and eaten by the cannibals.

Chalmers says that it was in his teens that he came to the great decision of his
life, I remember it well. Our Sunday school class had been held in the vestry as
usual. The lesson was finished, and we had marched back into the chapel to sing,
answer questions, and to listen to a short address.

I was sitting at the head of the seat, and can even now see Mr. Meikle taking
from his breastpocket a copy of the United Presbyterian Record, and hear him say
that he was going to read an interesting letter to us from a missionary in Fiji.
The letter was read. It spoke of cannibalism, and of the power of the Gospel,
and at the close of the reading, looking over his spectacles, and with wet eyes,
he said, “I wonder if there is a boy here this afternoon who will yet become a
missionary, and by-and-by bring the Gospel to cannibals?” And the response of my
heart was, “Yes, GOD helping me, and I will.” The unusual thing about Chalmers’
call was that it came, as he says, several years before his conversion. He
forgot his decision for a time and wandered far from CHRIST. Then came his
conversion, his preparation for the ministry, and his city missionary work in
Glasgow. He remembered his youthful vow, and after several talks with Dr. Turner
of Samoa he applied to be sent to the South Pacific.

ADONIRAM JUDSON

Every American Baptist knows Judson’s name. Not only was he one of the first
party of missionaries to go out from the United States, but he later inspired
the beginning of what is now the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society. Burma
was his field. He could scarcely have hit upon a harder one. Yet he came to be
called “the Apostle of Burma.”

According to his son, two things moved Judson to go to the mission field. After
his striking conversion, he had entered Andover Seminary to prepare for the
ministry. There he came in touch with Samuel Mills and other missionary-minded
students. They were just a small group, but deadly in earnest. And Judson soon
became as zealous as the others for the starting of an American mission society.
But it was not only the fellowship with these other students. It was also a
sermon. He had already finished his first year at the seminary when he read it.
The sermon had been preached in England by Dr. Claudius Buchanan, a chaplain of
the British East India Company. It had for its title “The Star in the East” and
spoke of the power and progress of the Gospel in India. Judson’s son says that
“this sermon fell like a spark into the tinder of Judson’s soul.” Six months
later he made his final decision to serve CHRIST as a foreign missionary.

JOHN SCUDDER

John Scudder was the first American medical missionary to India. He went out
under the earliest American society, the American Board of Commissioners for
Foreign Missions. But he later opened the Arcot field of the Reformed Church in
America. He was also the head of one of the most remarkable missionary families
in history, whose members through half a dozen generations have served as
missionaries on many fields.

Scudder wanted to be a minister. But when his father strongly opposed the idea,
he turned to medicine. In this field he did such good work that he soon built up
a good practice and began to prosper financially. Then one day the course of his
life was suddenly changed. In the course of his practice he went to attend a
Christian woman who was ill. In her room he saw a tract, The Conversion of the
World, or the Claims of Six Hundred Millions. He became interested and asked to
borrow it. At home he read it over and over, until finally he fell to his knees
saying, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” He didn’t hear an audible voice,
but in his heart he knew the answer was, “Go and preach the gospel to the
heathen.”But Scudder couldn’t make the final decision alone. He had a wife to
think of. He said to himself, “I have one to consult whose interests are blended
with my own, and whose happiness may be seriously affected by my decision. I
will lay the subject before her mind as it lies before mine. If she say nay, I
shall regard it as settling the question of duty.”

“From love to CHRIST,” he added, “and a sense of duty, she decided for the life
of a missionary. That purpose never gave way. It never even faltered.” At about
that time the American Board advertised for a doctor who would be willing to go
as a missionary, Dr. Scudder applied and was sent out.

JAMES M. THOBURN

James M. Thoburn, later Bishop Thoburn of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
India, was one of the most illustrious missionaries of that Church. No one ever
did more to promote the expansion of his Church in the Indian peninsula. And his
efforts extended beyond India itself to other lands. From shortly after his
conversion, Thoburn says that he was repeatedly faced with the challenge of the
mission field. He became a minister and was appointed to a circuit of churches.
Then one day, after he had preached for about a year, the challenge came again
with increased force. He had sat down to read his Church paper and was struck by
the leading editorial. It was an appeal for six young men to go to India.

He writes, “I was powerfully moved by the appeal, not so much by anything it
contained as by a strong impression that I ought to be one of the six young men
to go forth. I dropped the paper and fell upon my knees and promised GOD that I
would accept the call if only He would make it clear that He was sending me. I
asked for some token, for some definite indication that I was called from above,
not only in a general way to become a missionary, but to that special field and
at that special time.”

Thoburn made up his mind to ask the advice of his presiding elder as soon as he
saw him. When they met, the elder, not knowing what was on the young preacher’s
mind, remarked, “I met Bishop Janes on the train this morning.”

“Bishop Janes!” Thoburn replied. “What can he be doing out here?”

“He is on his way west, looking for missionaries for India. He wants six
immediately.”

Thoburn’s heart leaped into his throat. But before he could reply, the elder
continued, “James, how would you like to go?”

“It is very singular,” the young preacher replied, “but I have come here with
the special purpose of asking your advice about going to India.”“Well, I must
tell you that you have been in my mind all morning. I incline to think you ought
to go. I have felt so ever since the bishop told me his errand.”

Going to a little “prophet-chamber,” Thoburn prayed for guidance. He says, “I
did not receive any message, or realize any new conviction, or come down from my
sacred audience with GOD feeling that the matter was forever settled, and yet
that hour stands out in my life as the burning bush must have stood in the
memory of Moses. It was my burning bush. It has followed me through all the
years which have passed.”

ALEXANDER M. MACKAY

It was once said that Uganda was “the brightest spot on the map of Africa.” The
man who first sowed the Gospel in that central African kingdom was Alexander
Mackay, of the Church Missionary Society. He did not live to see the great
harvest, but few tales of dauntless courage and persistence are more inspiring
than his life.

Mackay prepared himself to become a civil engineer. Missions was not in his mind
when he left Britain for Germany to continue his studies. But he was a sincere
Christian, so he was not deaf to the Lord’s call when it came. And it came in a
most unusual way. In a letter to his sister from Berlin he wrote, “Well, it is
through you, or what you wrote me on December 11 last, that what I now have to
write you exists.

You told me then that you had been at a social meeting of our Literary
Association in Chalmers Memorial Church; that there you heard Dr. Burns
Thomson... urge young men of the Association to give themselves to the work and
go out as medical missionaries... to Madagascar...

Well, I am not a doctor, and therefore cannot go as such; but I am an engineer,
and propose, if the Lord will, to go as an engineering missionary. Miserable
chimera you will no doubt call such an idea. Yet immediately on the receipt of
your letter I wrote Dr. Bonar, offering myself to such work, and asking his
advice.” A couple of months later he wrote to his father, “Man is a violent
being, by virtue of what GOD has made him. Yet man is inwardly swayed by
external circumstances.

Now if to my ears or hands there comes the message, “Who will go to preach the
gospel in Madagascar?” how can I, except in unbelief, say otherwise than that
GOD caused that message to come to me? And if it is of GOD, must I not say,
“Here am I; send me”? The London Missionary Society was not able to use Mackay
in Madagascar at the time, but in 1875 the Church Missionary Society appealed
for a worker of Mackay’s qualifications for East Africa near Mombasa. He saw the
appeal and wrote home,”Remembering that Duff first thought of Africa as a
mission field, but was sent to India, and that Livingstone originally intended
to evangelize China, but the Lord willed he should spend his life in Africa, so
perhaps the Lord means me, after all, to turn my attention to the Dark
Continent; accordingly I have offered my services to the C.M.S. - the greatest
missionary society in the world - for Mombasa.” The C.M.S, however, had already
engaged another man. But a little later there appeared in the Daily Telegraph
Stanley’s letter describing his visit to Mtesa, king of Uganda, and challenging
Christendom to send missionaries to that land. The C.M.S. took up the challenge
and accepted Mackay for the work.

SUMMARY

These, then, were the missionary calls of seven really great missionaries of
CHRIST. No one would question that they were truly called, though the
circumstances of their calling were so different from one another. In fact, one
great lesson that we can learn from their testimonies is the diversity of ways
in which GOD may lead.

Notice well the following facts. Not one of these missionaries saw a vision.
dreamed a dream, or heard an audible voice calling him to go. All of them were
influenced by reading or hearing an appeal for willing workers. Yet the appeal
was general. Only Thoburn had a personal appeal made to him, and it was just one
of the confirmations of his call. But most of these men were in places where
they could readily hear the call when it came. Paton, Thoburn and Chalmers were
ministering at home. Judson was studying for the ministry, and Scudder had
wanted to do so. Judson was also influenced by missionary-minded companions. In
six cases the call had some connection with a definite field. Yet only three
actually served in those fields. The others went to different places. From this
we can see that the missionary call is not likely to come in a miraculous way.
Neither does it come to all people in the same way. Rather, if we wanted to
define it we should probably have to say that the missionary call is the “great
commission,” plus the assurance in your heart, no matter how it comes, that GOD
wants you as His witness abroad.

~ end of chapter 10 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 11 - MISSIONARY QUALIFICATIONS - ESSENTIAL
========================================================================

CHAPTER ELEVEN MISSIONARY QUALIFICATIONS ESSENTIAL WE SAID that the individual
Christian’s first responsibility to missions is to offer himself.

However, we added that the requirements for foreign service are such as to rule
out a great many who would like to serve as missionaries. They just wouldn’t be
able to qualify. In this chapter and the next we shall talk about missionary
qualifications.

Just what qualifications are needed in the foreign missionary? In general, we
may say, all the qualifications that make a good witness for CHRIST in the
homeland, plus some others. These others are made necessary because he does his
witnessing in a foreign land, under unfavorable circumstances, and with a
broader field of operations. The requirements of an ambassador for CHRIST in a
foreign land are very high, and we would do wrong to minimize them. He must
perform his ministry in unfamiliar surroundings. He does it through a new
language or languages that he has to learn by dint of hard work. He labors among
peoples who are often hostile, and whose culture is quite different from his
own. His message is open to suspicion, since he is a foreigner. As often as not,
he finds that the climate and the living conditions hamper his work and sap his
strength. Yet he has to carry on a broad ministry, and that with only a fraction
of the equipment and helps that are available in the homeland.

Whatever the mission boards may require, the mission field demands men and women
of the highest caliber and exacts the utmost from them.

Contrary to what many think, Christian piety alone is not enough for missionary
service.

Missionaries are not dreamy-eyed idealists, as the cartoonists picture them. By
force of circumstance they have to be realists. They couldn’t last long
otherwise. Their work makes demands upon every faculty and most of the knowledge
they possess, even among primitive peoples.

Yet the most essential qualifications for a good missionary are spiritual. There
are others that are valuable, but the spiritual ones are basic. Ten we are going
to discuss may not be exhaustive, but they are characteristics that mark every
successful missionary of CHRIST. Do you have them? (1) Devotion. Whole-hearted
devotion to CHRIST and His Gospel is a prime requisite. You can’t do without it
and be a missionary. You can’t win others to CHRIST if your own allegiance is
shaky. If you are uncertain about your faith, if you can’t say with heartfelt
assurance, “I know whom I have believed,” you had better stay at home.
Missionaries are those who are thoroughly “sold” on their faith. (2)
Spirituality. The missionary of CHRIST must be spiritually-minded, opposed to
materialmindedness. That is because his chief aims are spiritual. You don’t
reach spiritual ends by physical means. The missionary can’t disregard the
physical; it is a necessary part of his life and work. But he dare not let it
take the first place. Yet the temptations on the field are as great as at home,
if not actually greater, to regard material things too highly. It is not easy,
even for a missionary, to seek “first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,”
but it is necessary. The eternal value of the soul - of the things of the SPIRIT
- must occupy first place in the mind of CHRIST’s messenger to the heathen. (3)
Trust. Some missionaries are called “faith” missionaries. But they are not the
only ones who live a life of faith. On the foreign field we are usually far from
the ordinary means of human help that we are used to. Sometimes funds and
supplies fail. Sometimes illness strikes when no doctor or nurse is in ready
reach. The authorities may be against us and the people suspicious and
unfriendly. The powers of darkness seem overwhelming. Even in our own hearts we
struggle with discouragement, and there are no Christian advisers to whom we can
turn for comfort and encouragement. We come to realize that in ourselves we can
do nothing. Have you learned to trust GOD for every need, material and
spiritual? You will need to know that lesson to be a missionary. Trust doesn’t
spring up full-fledged in a time of crisis. You don’t get it when you reach the
field. Rather, little by little as you look to GOD for the small things and find
Him faithful: And there are plenty of chances to learn to trust Him, even in the
life of a student. Then when the time of great need comes, your heart
spontaneously turns to the One you know can meet every need. (4) Love. People
expect the missionary to be the very embodiment of GOD’s love to man. Isn’t he
sometimes the only representative of the Christian Gospel in a place? And isn’t
the heart of that Gospel the love of GOD? The love of GOD that sent His Son into
the world to die for sinful men is the same love that sends the missionary to
make that salvation known.

It is easy to love some people. It is not so easy to love others. But the
missionary cannot choose to love just those who are attractive. It is the love
of CHRIST that constrains the missionary to go, the love that poured itself out
for all of us when we were His enemies. It is the love of CHRIST which the
missionary aims to reveal as best he can, pouring out his own life in unselfish
devotion to the people to whom he goes. He learns to think of them as “my
people.”

Unless he loves them, he can hardly keep going. Unless he loves them, his work
is fruitless. (5) Moral courage. There are people whose standards of right and
wrong are very flexible. They can be bent to fit almost any situation so as to
offend no one. There are others who believe that “right is right”; but they
don’t believe it very audibly. That is, they haven’t the courage to stand up for
what they believe. Both types are “easy to get along with.” They never stir up
arguments. But such people don’t make good missionaries. Firm standards of right
and wrong are essential equipment for the missionary. And not only firm
standards, but the courage to make them known. He may be called “narrow-minded.”
That is part of the price for having convictions. “But it is the water in the
narrow channel that flows with greatest force.” Not that the missionary needs to
be obnoxiously opinionated. We are talking only about right and wrong. Neither
does he have to be overly harsh in denouncing sin. The Scripture advises
“speaking the truth in love.” But the truth must be spoken, sin must be faced
frankly and openly, or else he has no ministry worth the name. (6) Purpose.
There is an ailment afflicting many young people today that we might call lack
of purpose. They are not sure just what they want to do. They don’t know at what
goal they ought to aim. So they refrain from any choice, just waiting for
circumstances to show them what is likely to be most to their advantage.

Now a temporary uncertainty, especially in making a decision that is likely to
affect the whole course of your life, is not serious. You want to be careful.
But if you always find it hard to make up your mind; if you habitually show a
lack of eager purposefulness: if you don’t know what it is to have one great aim
to which you bring other interests into subjection, then you won’t make much of
a missionary. A missionary must be a man of vision. His vision must be a high
and worthy objective toward which he dedicates the whole course of his life. He
needs a God-given vision. (7) Discernment. In this matter again, the true
missionary is quite different from his caricature.

He is a man of vision but not a visionary. His vision may lead him to see beyond
present circumstances, but he dare not be blind to things as they are. The very
continuance of his work may depend on his discernment. He must be able to see
the real issues at stake in the many problems he faces. In plain language, he
needs lots of common sense. (8) Zeal. A real missionary is rightly a zealot. His
zeal doesn’t have to be of that effervescent type that shows itself in vigorous
demonstrations of emotion. It may be an intense, slow-burning but all-consuming
type that drives him steadily on in spite of opposition. But a zealot he is. A
lazy, indifferent missionary just has no place on the field. We can do better
without him. (9) Constancy. There are disappointments and discouragements in
every field. Perhaps we are more often disappointed with ourselves than with any
other one thing. The mission field shows us how weak we really are. And then
there comes the temptation to give up.

It’s easy to say that if you are sure the Lord sent you there, you won’t give
up. But there’s more to it than that. It’s too easy to persuade yourself that
you may have been mistaken, or that the Lord may have changed His mind. It’s the
one who has learned the lesson of constancy who usually holds fast. He has
learned to keep on in spite of discouragement. The Lord can depend on him and so
can his fellow workers.You can’t enjoy real success without such perseverance.
But, like faith, it isn’t something you can work up overnight. Instead it is the
result of constant practice in dependability: in employment, in studies, in
social relationships, in family obligations, etc. Have you come to the place
where people can always depend on you? (10) Leadership. Missionary work calls
for leaders. Whether they want to or not, those who go out as missionaries have
to take places of leadership. Bringing men to CHRIST is only the beginning. The
missionary then needs to lead them on in their spiritual development. He needs
to lead them in the formation of the Church. He needs to lead in the training of
national workers who will carry on the work. He must break the way in Christian
literature and a dozen other lines of work - things that are needed for the full
expression and development of the Christian life. So he must have the qualities
of leadership - especially initiative and responsibility. The ten qualifications
we have mentioned are essential for good missionary service. Insofar as a
missionary is weak in one or another, his work is bound to suffer. They are
qualifications that have marked the ministry of the really great missionaries.
But they are extremely hard to measure. How can a mission board tell what amount
of each is needed before it sends out a candidate? And can they possibly tell
how much he really has?

Clearly they are of most use to the candidate himself. He can use them in
examining his own heart and life. He can try to strengthen what is weak. Getting
by the board is incidental; he wants to be a missionary!

~ end of chapter 11 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 12 - MISSIONARY QUALIFICATIONS (CONTINUED)
========================================================================

CHAPTER TWELVE MISSIONARY QUALIFICATIONS (Continued) THE SPIRITUAL
QUALIFICATIONS given in the previous chapter are essential for missionary
service. But in the very nature of modern missions other requirements must also
be met. The requirements differ from mission to mission and from field to field,
so all that we can do is explain general principles or trends. You need to find
out the demands of any particular mission from the mission itself. But remember
that under some circumstances the mission may make exceptions. Of course the
exceptions are only for what it thinks are good reasons and are at its own
discretion. The mission, you see, tries to look at the candidate as an
individual and not as a mere collection of qualifications. They try to see how
he would fit in with their needs and program.

Note, too, that some boards are strict in their requirements, while others are
notoriously lax. If you want to have the happiest and most fruitful service, set
your aim high.

We begin with the physical requirements because they are the most obvious and
the easiest to judge.

First as to age. Naturally no one is too old or too young to witness for CHRIST.
But when we come to choosing a messenger who can go to a foreign land and make
known the message of CHRIST among a strange people, a man who can establish and
build up a Church there, the question of age is often quite important. The
general principle is this. The candidate needs to be young enough: (1) to learn
well the language of the people to whom he goes; (2) to adapt himself physically
and mentally to new conditions of living; and (3) to look forward to enough
years of ministry to be worth the necessary expense for his equipment, his
passage to the field, and the special training the mission will have to give
him. On the other hand, he needs to be old enough to be mature in thinking and
acting, so he can take on the serious responsibilities of a missionary’s life
and work. In practice, some missions will accept young people in their very
early twenties. But it is generally held that 25 or 26 is a much better age to
enter the work. It gives time for more thorough preparation and the needed
maturity.

Again, many missions set 30 as the maximum age for a candidate under normal
conditions.

Others extend the limit to 35, especially where more preparation is required.
This maximum age limit is set aside in some exceptional cases. It may be done
for doctors, for instance. The reason is that their period of training is quite
prolonged. Also the effectiveness of their ministry is not quite so closely tied
up with their ability to use the native tongue as that of the evangelistic
missionary. It may also be done for others with specialized training. That is,
it will be done if their special abilities are needed badly enough to offset the
disadvantage of their age.

Now a word about health. The average missionary works in fields and under
conditions that make serious demands on his health and strength. The mortality
rate among missionaries has been greatly reduced in recent years, and the
conditions of work in most fields have been improved, but the job still calls
for a sound and vigorous constitution.

Then too, in spite of the noble work being done in many fields by the medical
missionaries, and in spite of the growth of a better native medical practice,
there are still many places where the missionary can’t count on competent help
in illness. Sometimes the non-medical missionary not only has to take care of
his own family, but from his limited knowledge of medicine he has to try to help
the sick among the natives. Of course there are wide differences between fields,
and each mission sets its standards according to the need in its own field. But
in principle, the candidate needs to be sound and robust when he leaves for his
field of service. He will have to be able to adjust himself readily to a new
climate and environment, to carry on an active life, and to take up the heavy
responsibilities of his mission without undue strain. He must have the health to
combat any unforeseen illness that attacks him, with reasonable hopes of
success. To assure this, the missions usually prescribe a rigid physical
examination for each candidate. The mission itself prefers to choose the doctor
who makes the examination rather than depend on the candidate’s family
physician. The reason is obvious. Sometimes for greater security they require
more than one examination.

It is not at all uncommon for the examining doctor to find some dormant ailment
of which the candidate was not aware. And some of these things can easily flare
up into activity under the strains of missionary life. Some ailments can be
corrected with little difficulty, though the treatment may delay the candidate’s
acceptance or departure for the field. Others are more serious. For this reason,
if you are thinking of foreign missionary service, it may be well to have a
complete physical check-up at the earliest opportunity. Do it even before
applying to the mission or finishing your course of training. That is, of
course, unless you are already on the verge of applying. It may be that only in
a few cases will the examination reveal an unsuspected illness that would close
the door to foreign service. But there is no keener disappointment than that of
the young person who has dedicated his life for foreign missions, has spent a
number of years in preparation, has built up his plans and hopes about it, and
then discovers through the final medical examination that he can’t go.In
speaking of health the average layman is likely to overlook matters of nervous
and mental stability. So let me add a word just here. By experience the missions
have learned to take these things into consideration. Excessive nervousness at
home becomes greatly aggravated under the strains of missionary life. It may
even become dangerous. And of course mental health and balance are, if anything,
more necessary for an effective ministry than bodily soundness. The mental and
spiritual strains of missionary life are greater than the physical strains. They
can scarcely be comprehended by one who has not actually served on the field and
experienced them. A further practical note. One of the most important factors in
preserving missionary health is personal cleanliness and neatness. This is
largely a matter of habits, habits that can be built up before going to the
field and adjusted to meet the conditions there. Slovenliness is both irritating
to those you have to live with, and it opens the door to needless disease. Do
keep this in mind. A condition that would keep you from the field today, you may
often so correct that within a year or two it would no longer stand in the way.
The very experience of overcoming your handicap is the best possible training
for service on the field. Of course there are some physical handicaps that you
can’t completely overcome. The loss of a leg or an arm, or the crippling effects
of poliomyelitis are permanent handicaps. They sometimes close the door to
missionary service. But not always. There are some places and kinds of work
where the possession of two arms or two legs is not essential. Then, if you have
the special ability or training that is needed, you may find the mission ready
to overlook your handicap.

Teaching in an established station, or literary work, are just two of several
types of service that a handicapped person can perform. But of course you have
to be superior in your abilities so as to compensate for the handicap. The
matter of educational requirements calls for special attention. It is perhaps
more misunderstood than any other requirement.

Missionary work is first of all a spiritual service. As such there can never be
any satisfactory substitute for a real personal knowledge and experience of
CHRIST. No amount of education can cover up a lack here. If we had to choose
between a candidate with little formal education but a vital relationship to
JESUS CHRIST, and another with a very high scholastic record but a very
superficial experience of the power of the Gospel, the choice would be easy. The
first would make by far the better missionary. But such a theoretical case
probably never occurs. What does often occur is that the mission must choose
between candidates whose religious experience is more or less similar, but whose
educational qualifications may differ widely. Given the same amount of spiritual
life and leadership, the one with the better educational background is sure to
prove more useful on the field.

Missionary work makes great demands on the intellectual ability and preparation
of the missionary. Some types of work demand more than others, but they all
demand an ability that is definitely above average. We find the reason in the
work the missionary has to do. His ministry is largely mental and
spiritual.Sometimes we get absorbed in the physical side of missionary life. We
like to hear of the missionary’s adventures, his physical hardships, the
problems of living in another land. But these are only incidental. They are
interesting but not fundamental. Missionaries at times get irritated because
people are always asking what they have to eat. “As if that were all that
mattered!” exclaimed one missionary in disgust. “Why don’t they ask about the
work?” Of course sometimes the missionary’s work does include building,
repairing, and traveling, and a good many other such activities. But those are
not the real purpose of his being there. His main job is dealing with the souls
of men. It may not take most of his time, but it is the heart of his work.

He tries to sway men’s thinking. He seeks to change the course and objectives of
their lives. The arms of his warfare are spiritual. Words are his most valuable
weapons - preeminently the Word of GOD. He plants thoughts and nourishes them
until they bear fruit. The fruits of his labors are changed hearts and minds. He
stimulates the fellowship of the saints and guides their worship. With wise
counsel he multiplies his usefulness and sees recreated in others that spiritual
life and development that CHRIST has already brought to him. He deals in
thoughts, in souls, in life. To do this he must be prepared. And while the years
of school work don’t always show the amount of training a man has, we don’t have
any other very usable gauge. So missions will continue to use this one. They
will keep on stating this requirement in terms of years of schooling, courses
taken and degrees obtained.

Remember this. The missionary usually has to do his work in a language other
than his own. He has to learn that language, not superficially so as to bargain
in the market place or to give orders to a construction gang, but thoroughly.
Remember that he has to teach the people in their own tongue the sublime truths
of Christianity, the most profound truths the human mind is capable of grasping.
Unless the people understand his message, all his work is in vain. Among
primitive people his task is even more difficult than among those who are more
advanced. It is always true that the greatest simplicity of expression calls for
the greatest depth and breadth of knowledge.

Remember too, that a missionary, no matter how humbly he may want to serve, soon
finds that he has to take a place of leadership. His work demands it. And while
leaders may occasionally come from among the self-educated, they never come from
the ranks of the uneducated.

Besides, it is a mistake always to think of missionary work in terms of
ignorant, uncultured, primitive peoples. We have a marvelous message to give,
but we mustn’t get it confused with our blind pride in being superior to every
other people. Really we aren’t. We have much to learn from others. Even from the
so-called “primitives.” But the fact is that in many of the “backward” areas the
missionary has to deal with some very well-educated people. We need to remember
that many mission fields, just like our own country, are not static. They are
changing, too. They are improving their educational systems. Many of their young
people have even studied in our own colleges and universities.

It is no wonder that some missionaries, after a time on the field, begin to feel
a lack in their educational background. Some are enrolled in our schools right
now. They have even asked for extended furloughs so they can complete the
education they lacked before going out. Or they take additional work to improve
their ministry. In reality, the educational needs for a foreign missionary are
greater than those for the home worker. He does the same work and more. He has
to do it in another language. The circumstances are much less favorable. And he
has to get along with only a fraction of the equipment available at home. Or,
what is quite common, he will improvise, invent or manufacture his own. The
principle involved in the educational requirement is this: Education should be
preparation for living. Therefore the missionary must have an education that
will help him to live among the people in a way that will gain their respect.
But education is also preparation for service. So the missionary must have
enough education, and of the right kind, to prepare him for his part of the
missionary job. This is very broad, I know. The reason is that missionary work
itself is so broad. Different kinds of work call for different kinds of
training. And some ministries require longer preparation than others. In
general, a broad cultural education, plus Bible training, gives the best
foundation. In practice, most of the denominational missions require their
candidates to graduate from a fouryear college course. In addition, they require
seminary or Bible institute of those who are not going to engage in some
specialized work, such as medicine, general education, agriculture, etc.

Even for this specialized work they may require at least a year of Bible
training, since all these efforts must contribute to the chief missionary aim.
The faith missions, and some small denominations, set a minimum requirement of
graduation from high school, plus Bible institute training. This is a minimum,
and they may recommend more. In fact, the trend among the better established
faith missions is toward a raising of these requirements. For specialized work
of course there are special requirements. Some are set by the mission and some
by the country to which the missionary goes. The Mission, for example, will
insist that its doctors be fully qualified to practice in their homeland. They
want their educational missionaries to have the proper training to make them
good teachers. The governments, in addition, may make other demands. For
instance, in Nigeria any missionary who dispenses medicines must have taken at
least six months of certain prescribed courses of study in this field and be
certified by the government. In the Belgian Congo, those who conduct schools
recognized by the government must take certain courses in Belgium. Since these
requirements differ a great deal from place to place and from time to time, you
need to have the advice of the mission’s candidate secretary during the period
of training.

We have said that missionary work demands an ability that is definitely above
average. This doesn’t mean that every missionary is expected to be an
intellectual genius. Each one of course will show more talent in one direction
than another, but it is better to have a well-rounded development than extreme
brilliance in a limited field. A high average scholarship, in spite of a few low
grades, is good. And one of the most valuable traits is an aptitude for teaching
others.

~ end of chapter 12 ~


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: 13 - MISSIONARY QUALIFICATIONS (CONCLUDED)
========================================================================

CHAPTER THIRTEEN MISSIONARY QUALIFICATIONS (Concluded)

BESIDES ITS PHYSICAL and educational requirements, the mission is always
interested in the personality of the one who seeks appointment. Our present-day
use of the term “personality” is very hard to define. It seems to be the total
effect of our manner of acting upon others. So we say a man has no personality
if he fails to make any deep impression, either good or bad, on others. He has a
good personality if his good qualities, as we see them, impress us more strongly
than his bad ones. And a bad personality is just the reverse.

These things don’t have to bear any relation to reality. The man with the good
personality may be a scoundrel of deepest dye, and the one with no personality
may have the strongest character of the lot. We are dealing only with the
outward appearance and the impression it makes on others. The Scripture
recognizes this difference between the reality of an action and the impression
it makes on others. It says, “Let not then your good be evil spoken of.” It
urges us both to do good and to see that the impression is good. A bookkeeper
doesn’t have to worry about the impression he makes on anybody but the boss. The
main thing is to have his records neat and accurate. That’s not true of the
salesperson, however. The volume of his sales and the commission he gets may
depend on such impressions. A research scientist may be a very disagreeable
person to meet, at the same time that he is highly regarded for his
contributions to science. But a minister of the Gospel can’t even get a hearing
for his message if he continually rubs people the wrong way. The missionary, of
all people, needs to make the right kind of impressions. He not only has to get
a hearing for his message, but that message is so tied in with his own life that
the impression of his life and the impression of the Gospel are likely to be the
same thing. Then, too, his whole ministry revolves around his relationship with
other people. He can’t do his work in a corner.

Even such a scholarly task as the translation of the Bible requires contact with
the people. The translator has to immerse himself in the life of the people
until he can express the living message of the Bible in the living tongue that
they use every day. He has to draw out from them the words that he needs, with
infinite patience and understanding. But he can’t do it until he wins first
their confidence.

Then add to these things the fact that the missionary must both work and live
with other missionaries under conditions that are not the best. And this
relationship is not one that he can terminate on two weeks’ notice. No wonder
the mission is very much interested in the personality of its candidates.

If you ask what elements in the personality are the most important, no one can
say. Perhaps no two missionary leaders would agree on a list of them. Even when
there is fairly general agreement on one trait, we have to admit that there have
been some outstanding exceptions. That is, there have been some who lacked that
trait, or were weak in it, and still made good missionaries. The reason is that
personality is not a collection of independent traits. It is a composite in
which the many traits are fused together into a whole being. We like one man and
we dislike another without stopping to analyze their personalities and determine
just what elements we like or dislike in them. When we weigh them in the balance
of our likes and dislikes, we never estimate just how much generosity it takes
to counterbalance an ounce of jealousy. We just react to the total impression
they make on us.

It is to get that total impression that some missions don’t depend wholly on the
questionnaires they send to the candidate and his references. The questionnaire
only deals with definite and specific items. They don’t even depend on a few
personal interviews, which are more general and allow them to get some personal
impressions. But they try to arrange for a longer personal contact with him in
the affairs of daily life. They invite him to spend a time in the mission home -
maybe a week or so, maybe a longer period. There he lives, works and studies
with other candidates. They see how he gets along with others. They get a
general view of his personality.

There are some things about the personality of the candidate that the mission is
particularly interested in. Sometimes they ask questions of the references;
sometimes they get the answers in other ways. I have stated the questions so
that the preferred answer is obvious. Then the candidate can look them over,
check his own weaknesses and perhaps make some improvements. (1) Does the
candidate have real strength of character? Or does he usually run along with the
crowd and let others make his decisions for him? (2) Is he self-centered, or
does he take a real interest in the affairs of others? (3) Is he easily
discouraged by difficulties? Does he usually finish what he begins? (4) Does he
work well when not under supervision? Can he be depended on to fulfill all his
obligations? (5) Is he usually tactful and reasonable, even under moderate
stress? Or does he easily lose his head? (6) Does he have a good supply of
common sense? (7) Does he show the initiative and willingness to take
responsibility that a leader needs? (8) Is it difficult for him to co-operate
with others, or to obey those in authority? (9) Does he readily adapt himself to
new situations? (l0) Has he learned to endure hardness without complaint?(11)
What about his emotional stability? Is he given to fits of despondency? Does he
have a good sense of humor? (12) Can he stand criticism, and even ridicule? (13)
Is he willing to serve in any capacity if necessary, no matter how humble? (14)
Does he have a teachable spirit?

Now a word about Christian life and work as a qualification. The spiritual
qualifications we began with are essential for missionary service. But, as we
said, the mission board would find it hard to evaluate them. For practical
purposes they inquire into certain definite matters about the candidate’s life
and experience. Of course they want to know first of all if he has given
evidence of real Christian life and character. They ask this of his references
and any others who may know him.

Then they want to know from the candidate if he has any definite convictions
about the missionary call, motives and purposes. Why does he want to be a
missionary? In the matter of beliefs there is quite a difference of procedure.
Some missions require the candidate simply to sign the doctrinal statement of
the mission. Some want an independent statement from the candidate himself in
his own words. Some quiz him on certain special items. The whole purpose is to
make sure that he is in harmony with the fundamental principles of the mission.

Experience in Christian work is very important. The missionary shouldn’t go out
as a novice. If he hasn’t learned to serve CHRIST and to win souls in his
homeland, he isn’t ready for overseas service. Sometimes a mission will even
recommend that he have a short period in the pastorate or in the home mission
field before he is approved to go abroad.

One last question is frequently put to the candidate in somewhat this form:
“What are your devotional habits (Note that we say habits, not occasional
practices.)” Our devotional practices are very deliberate in their beginning,
and the atmosphere in which most young people live is not very conducive to
keeping them up with regularity. It is only through constant repetition over a
long period of time that they become habitual. Then they show the mold into
which the spiritual life has been cast.

Engagement and marriage must next be considered.

It may seem strange that the matter of engagement and marriage should come under
the heading of qualifications for missionary service. But it has a definite
bearing on the subject. In considering the qualifications of a candidate, the
mission always wants to know whether he is married, engaged or single. It makes
a difference. They don’t want single missionaries for some kinds of work. For
others they do. They may even consider that some candidates would be acceptable
if married; otherwise not. And of course if there are children it may influence
the decision. The great majority of missionaries are married, either before
leaving for the field or at some time, afterward. The mission seldom makes it a
requirement today, but it figures on it as the usual thing. In some cases it may
even prefer married couples. This is especially true in places where custom
demands that all women must have husbands and any unattached woman is not
respectable. But marriage does present some problems that each Candidate needs
to understand.

There are some very real values in having a missionary family on most fields. So
the mission, as such, is not usually opposed to marriage or families. Neither
does it presume to judge whether the young man’s intended is the right one for
him. That is a purely personal matter. But these things do have an effect on the
work. And that is what concerns the mission. Let’s see if we can make the
problems clear.

One of the problems became especially acute shortly after World War II. That war
interrupted or postponed the training of many young men for missionary service.
On their return from military service, after several years of absence, it was
only natural that many of them should decide to get married before continuing
their training. The government itself favored such an arrangement by increasing
its educational allowance to those who had wives and families. In time these
young couples applied for appointment to the mission field. One day the director
of a large mission said to me, “What are we going to do with these young couples
who apply to us with three or four children? We don’t want to turn a man down
simply because he has a family. But you can see the problems it raises.” Of
course I could. It means a much larger expenditure for outfit and passage. It
means more support on the field during the long months of learning the language,
getting introduced to the many phases of the work and becoming adjusted. It
means not only increased problems of housing during language school days, but
also the problem of caring for the children so that the parents may have time
for classes and study. It means all the burdens and distractions of caring for a
sizable family at the time when the young couple should be giving their
attention to getting a grasp of the work. But in spite of such problems, the
missions do send out a number of families, especially where they are very well
qualified. The most conservative will accept those with only one child. Others
have no set rule and consider each case on its individual merits.

Aside from the problems presented by the children, the candidate ought to
understand that the mission usually expects both the man and his wife to be
missionaries. Sometimes a mission will appoint a missionary and his wife; but
usually they prefer to appoint two missionaries. The wife is expected to measure
up to the usual standards of acceptance. Her ministry will not be just the same
as if she were single, and it shouldn’t make her neglect her family
responsibilities, but it is a real ministry. And it requires real ability and
good preparation.

What does a mission do when, for health or some other reason, one of the two is
not acceptable?

What can it do but reject them both? It is a hard decision to make, but it is
necessary. It has been made many a time. For the young couple this may seem like
a tragic disappointment. But it doesn’t need to be. If you have let the Lord
lead you in the choice of your helpmate just as sincerely as in the other
affairs of life; if you are sure that He has brought you two together and means
for you to be together; then the rejection can only mean that He has another
place of service for you. You should consider such a rejection in the same light
as if it had been the rejection of both individuals. For in GOD’s sight you two
are in truth “one flesh.”

It is customary for missions to require that couples be married for at least a
year before actually sailing for the field. The major purpose is quite simple,
yet important. Marriage involves many adjustments in the lives of the young
couple, adjustments they don’t often think about ahead of time. Little things
like the time for meals, or what to do of an evening, or whether to buy a new
rug for the living-room, can no longer be decided by each one individually. And
there are a hundred and one other adjustments in the blending of two hitherto
independent lives.

Also when we go to foreign lands as missionaries of CHRIST there are many
adjustments to make. There is a different climate, different conditions of
living, a very different people whose ways of thinking seem strange to us. There
is a new etiquette to learn and abide by, a new lack of privacy even in our own
home, and a radically new diet to get used to. To make two sets of adjustments
of such a radical nature at one and the same time is too much to require of
anyone. In addition, the honeymoon is not the best time for learning a new and
difficult language. So at least a year is allowed for adjustment to married life
before the adjustment to missionary life is begun. A similar situation faces
those engaged young people who go to the field single, expecting to be married
after they arrive. But here it is the adjustment to missionary life that they
need to make before they enter into marriage. The mission usually requires them
to wait one or two years after they reach the field. That is, they wait until
the adjustment to the field has been made and the language has been learned.

There is a further complication for the engaged couples. The mission has found
that it is wise to put them in separate stations until marriage. That means they
don’t have the frequent opportunities to see one another that they enjoyed in
the homeland. It also means that one of the stations is going to lose a worker
just at the time when he is becoming really useful. Or maybe after marriage they
will both be sent to an entirely different station. But this problem is
unavoidable.

If you ask whether it is better to get married before going to the field, or
wait until after arriving, you will get all sorts of answers. No one will fit
all cases. The idea of getting married first is usually the more attractive. But
the mission will point out several dangers. There is a danger that you may get
sidetracked into some other line of service while you are waiting. Or the
arrival of children may postpone your leaving for the field; or it may preclude
it altogether. Each candidate has to make his own decision in the light of all
the facts, and looking to the Lord for guidance.

~ end of chapter 13 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: 14 - MISSIONARY PREPARATION
========================================================================

CHAPTER FOURTEEN MISSIONARY PREPARATION

HOW DOES A YOUNG PERSON go about getting prepared for missionary service? The
answer to this question is not easy. You see, it depends to some extent on the
point in his life at which he makes his decision to volunteer. Maybe he is
already near the age limit. Then there isn’t much time for special training,
though he may already have some training that is useful. But if he makes his
decision in his teens, he will have plenty of time to carry out a thorough,
wellplanned course of preparation.

Still, there are other things to consider. He wants to be a missionary. But what
kind of missionary? Maybe he has only a vague idea of what a missionary is and
does. Is he to be an evangelistic missionary? An educational missionary? A
medical missionary? A technical missionary? Each of these requires special
aptitudes and preparation. The personal characteristics and abilities of the
young person enter into the problem, too. Just because you think you would like
to be a missionary doctor doesn’t mean that you can be one. And don’t think that
you are fitted for “pioneer work” simply because the stories of such work always
give you a thrill.

There are a good many missionary training schools; some good, some not so good.
They range all the way from a few months in a so-called “boot camp” to the
specialized work in some graduate schools of missions. But none of them does the
whole job. They build on a basis of previous training. Some don’t have any
requirements of previous education. But they still take it for granted that you
have had our ordinary public school training. Others have most of their students
with degrees from colleges and seminaries. What they are able to do depends both
on their own program and on what their students have learned before. But much of
the training for a missionary doesn’t come from schools or books. It is gained
in other ways. And success in missionary work depends fully as much on this
extracurricular preparation as it does on the school work. For a missionary is a
witness to CHRIST and to the Christian life. So he must know that life by living
it.

There are several things in missionary preparation that we might call
indispensables. That is, they are not only important, but so valuable that to
miss them would cause our ministry to suffer.

They are things so fundamental that without them there can’t be a real
missionary ministry at all.

They are things we can’t do without. Let’s take a little time to talk about
them. Then I think you will see what we mean.

It may seem strange to say that there is any particular kind of preparation that
all missionaries ought to have for all fields. Even more strange to say that
there is any type of preparation that is really indispensable for them all.
After all, there is a great deal of specialization in missions today. There has
to be. And surely the technical specialist doesn’t need the same kind of
preparation as the evangelistic missionary. In a sense he doesn’t. His training
as a technician is quite different from that of the evangelist. But remember
that he is a missionary. And if the word missionary is to have any meaning at
all, it must mean that those who bear that name have some things in common. It
is those things which make them missionaries. It is like those who call
themselves Christians. By occupation they may be almost anything. But in that
name they are united in a common faith, a common standard of right and wrong,
etc. The true indispensables in missionary preparation are all spiritual.
Classroom work plays a part, but it is not effective by itself. It is too easy
to learn lessons for an examination without having them affect the course of our
lives. We can take the finest course of preparation offered in any school and
still be unprepared for missionary service. Some have done it. We need something
more, something in addition to the school work. In general there are four
indispensables in the preparation of the missionary.

First, and fundamental to all the rest, there is the training of our inner life
- what we might call spiritual training. Then there is the training to show
forth that life in our relations with others, a matter of vital importance in
all missionary service. A third item is, of course, our training in the message
we are called to deliver. A missionary is GOD’s messenger, so he must have His
message well in hand. And last is the matter of experience, which comes from
practice in presenting the message to others. Experience also brings maturity,
that seasoning which we can only get by actually coming to grips with life and
living men. In the vitally important line of spiritual training the least
systematic work has been done. The mission boards look for certain spiritual
qualifications in those who apply, but the schools don’t offer courses in the
subject. It may be that we are counting on the churches doing the job. If so,
we’re making a big mistake. The training given by most churches is quite
haphazard. And when several young people offer themselves for missions from the
same Church, the amount of spiritual training they have had is never the same.

One candidate, for instance, was born in a devout Christian home. At an early
age he accepted the Saviour. Shortly afterward he offered his life for service
on the foreign mission field. This allows for years of development before he
actually sails. The Bible becomes a familiar book; family devotions and private
prayers make their mark on his life; Sunday school lessons, sermons,
conferences, Bible camps, young people’s societies, all help to foster and
strengthen the growth of his spiritual life.Another, however, did not know of
CHRIST’s salvation until some time during his college days.

He comes from a non-Christian background and has already delved deeply into the
sinful ways of the world. But then he allows CHRIST to enter his life and it is
transformed. In the enthusiasm of his new-found faith he too volunteers for
missionary service. He hasn’t the background of the first candidate, but he is
not a whit behind him in sincerity of purpose. He may even excel him in
warmhearted zeal. He joins the Church and takes an active part in its affairs.
He associates with other Christian young people. He takes counsel with his
pastor and drinks in avidly the messages that he hears.

Now it is possible that the second young man may outstrip the first in his
spiritual development after a time. Then again, maybe he won’t. It is something
that is hard to prophesy. In any case he is not likely to find that any course
has been planned for his spiritual development. Certainly not in college. Even
in the seminary they aim chiefly to give him an intellectual mastery of certain
truths and to help him gain certain skills. His spiritual profiting will depend
mostly on his own initiative and his associations outside of the classroom. Of
all preparatory schools, the Bible institutes seem to have made the most
definite provision for training of the spirit as well as the mind. Of course it
is not enough. They themselves would be the first to admit it. But it is a part
of their plan, and an important one. Student life is more closely regulated than
in other schools. There is an emphasis, often repeated, on the devotional life
and practical Christianity. Every student is assigned to do some practical
Christian service, which makes him exercise the spiritual life he already has
and helps him grow. But even so, it is not enough.

What kind of spiritual training does the missionary need? Let me mention briefly
a few items with which not many will disagree. Devotional habits are very
important - habits of communing with GOD in prayer and drawing help and
instruction and inspiration from His Word. These are almost the breath of life
to the missionary. Now it takes constant and regular repetition to turn an
occasional practice into a habit. This is part of our missionary preparation.
With these habits should go the constant application of Christian principles to
everyday living. A course in Christian ethics at school is not of much value so
long as it is kept in the abstract. The principles don’t begin to have real
meaning and value until they are applied to definite situations. For instance,
it is easy to repeat that all lying is wrong. But it is not so easy to tell the
truth when a lie would apparently save you from an embarrassing situation. How
do you know the principle is true if you don’t apply it? A missionary must be
sure!

Also, what good is it to know the theological definition of faith, or to be able
to expound Paul’s teaching on faith in Galatians, if you don’t know how to
exercise faith in the affairs of life?

There are many times, even in student life, when faith is called for. And do
take notice that, to the heathen, religion is fully as much experience as it is
theory, if not more so. He won’t be interested in any new theory or doctrine
that isn’t borne out by experience.

Training for your own spirit also comes through learning to deal with others
about their soul’s needs. Here our first indispensable merges with the others,
especially with the second one, the one that deals with our relationship with
other people. Personal evangelism is the very cornerstone of missionary work
everywhere, and the same preparation of heart that you need for it here at home
is what you need in foreign lands. Personal counseling, too, is one of the
missionary’s most common jobs, and one of the most demanding. Its principles are
pretty much the same wherever you go. And one of those principles is that the
counselor must show a real interest in the one who seeks his help. In fact, the
missionary needs to be, of all people, one who is unselfishly interested in
others, one who is willing to make their burdens his own. In a missionary’s
life, too, relationship to others involves the matter of leadership. For whether
he wants it or not, people do look to him for leadership. Now some seem to think
that leadership is a purely natural gift; that some people are born leaders
while others will always be followers. It’s perfectly true that some do have an
exceptional talent for leadership. But it is not true that all of our leaders
come from those talented few. Instead, it is perfectly possible for those who
don’t have such a gift to develop real ability as leaders. Often all that they
need is the opportunity and the encouragement to step out and lead.

We said that missionaries are expected to be leaders. Whether they get proper
training beforehand or not, the very circumstances of their life make them take
on the responsibilities of leadership. If they have had good training and
experience, they can do a creditable job. If not, they will probably become
petty dictators. And this will bring harm to the work.

What does leadership training involve? We can give only a limited amount in
class instruction; we can explain some of the basic principles and how to apply
them. The student can learn more by observing those who lead, by following their
example. But more important than either of these is experience in leading. The
one who wants to be a leader needs to take every chance to exercise leadership.

Several things are fundamental. The leader needs to have a definite objective;
he must know where he is going. He has to be ready to make decisions, and then
accept the responsibility for them after they are made. The one who finds it
hard to make up his mind, who always hesitates to commit himself for fear he
might make a mistake, had better practice making decisions on every possible
occasion. He will make mistakes, of course. But his mistakes will be just so
many valuable lessons that will help him to make better decisions next time. And
the one who doesn’t want to take responsibility just isn’t material for a
missionary. The one who is to be a Christian leader also needs to learn the
lesson that Peter taught, that we are to take the oversight of GOD’s flock, not
“as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” We show
real leadership when we can get others to do what we have in mind, while all the
time they are convinced that they are doing what they want. Our third
indispensable has to do with the mastery of the message we bear to others. All
too often I have been asked by those who had some special technical training or
skill, “Is there a place where I can be used in the mission field?” They usually
presume that in missionary work we need laboratory technicians, printers,
builders, teachers, nurses, etc. That is all wrong. We need missionaries - young
men and young women with a message! They may be educational missionaries,
industrial missionaries, medical missionaries; but first and foremost they must
be missionaries. As a doctor in the Congo once wrote, “If I thought my job out
here was just to heal men’s bodies, I would stay at home!”

All of the various types of work in which missionaries engage are proper and
useful only as they contribute to the one great aim of missions. They must be
related to the task of bringing CHRIST to the people, of winning them to Him and
building them up in Him.

Every missionary must be a man with a message, and he must know that message
well. The mission field is no place for the man who has serious doubts about his
faith. Neither is it the place for one who is not quite sure just what his
message is. He doesn’t have to be a finished theologian. He doesn’t need to be a
profound student of the prophetic Word. But he does need to know the essential
elements of his faith and be fully persuaded of their truth. He does have to
show to people that he has a working knowledge of the Scriptures. And he must be
able to show them how that message touches their lives.

Remember that the people to whom the missionary goes are not ignorant. They may
be illiterate, but that is quite another thing. There are often among illiterate
people some of the keenest minds to be found anywhere. And they are remarkably
acute in their evaluation of the missionary. They may overlook his halting
speech, his apparent lack of logic in some of the things he says, and even his
ignorance of some things that don’t have too much to do with his work. But two
faults are inexcusable: a failure to know his message, and an insincerity in
professing what he doesn’t fully believe or practice.

Bible training, then, is indispensable to all missionaries, no matter what their
type of service. Our final indispensable is experience in presenting the
message. We have already said something about maturity in the spiritual life,
which comes through experience. We have also spoken of experience in such a
matter as the leadership of others. The Bible, too, becomes a living message to
others largely to the extent that we who preach it have experienced its power in
our own lives.

It is remarkable how these indispensable elements in missionary preparation are
intertwined with one another. It is only in our thinking that we attempt to
separate them. In life they merge into one another. This matter of experience in
presenting the message is very important. Mr. Moody knew its value and stressed
it in founding the Moody Bible Institute. He made practical Christian work an
integral part of the course of training. It still has that place of importance
at Moody as well as in other Bible institutes.

Yet in spite of such experience during their school days, I have had students
come to me as they neared graduation and say, “I don’t believe I’m ready to go
out as a missionary. If I am to be a leader on the mission field I feel that I
need more experience in dealing with souls, more experience in meeting the
spiritual problems of real life.” And some of these young people have gone into
home mission work for a short time to get that experience before going abroad.

Such young people have shown a real perception of what it means to be a
missionary. On the mission field you are not reciting lessons. People don’t quiz
you on the subjects you had in school and allow you to show why you got top
honors in theology or Church history or some other such subject. In fact, what
may disturb the missionary most is their complete indifference to what he has to
say, even when they are polite enough to listen while he talks.

You are a missionary. So what? That doesn’t mean anything to them except that
you are an object of curiosity. Can you engage them in conversation and so
direct that conversation that it will turn to matters of the spirit? It’s not
difficult in many fields. Other peoples are often more interested in religious
matters than are the folks at home. But once you have begun the discussion, can
you keep it in the main channel where you can present the Lord JESUS CHRIST in
all His desirability? Can you disregard the minor matters and get to the heart
of the question so as to reach the heart of the man? It takes practice.

Again, missionary leaders are insisting, “We need missionaries who know how to
express themselves!” Well, that is just where experience comes in. You don’t
learn to express yourself by reading a book or answering a set of true-false
questions. You need practice. If, as they say, you “learn to write by writing,”
you also learn to express yourself by repeated efforts to tell others what is in
your mind. The aim of missions is not simply to proclaim the Gospel. It is to
proclaim it in such a way that men will listen to it, understand it, and be
moved to obey it. Differences of language don’t mean very much in this matter.
If you can express yourself in English you will learn to express yourself in an
other tongue. If your thoughts are hazy and disordered, and your expression is
anything but clear in English, there is no magic in learning another language
that will straighten you out. You need this preparation before going to the
field.

One last thing. We have mentioned the missionary’s need to give counsel on the
field, counsel of all sorts. More than anything else, this calls for experience.
You need to know people through much association with them. The missionary is no
hermit. You need to know something of the forces that move men, the problems
that most of them face. It takes experience as well as tact to draw them out and
to avoid the pitfalls that go with snap judgments. “Advice is cheap,” we say,
for there is so much cheap advice on the market. It is given without any
background of experience to make it valuable. Yet when a troubled new believer
comes to a young missionary with a vital problem, he doesn’t want cheap advice.
He has come to GOD’s messenger and he looks for GOD’s message. How humble it
should make the missionary feel, and how dependent on God!

These things, then, are indispensable in the preparation of the missionary
candidate. Other training is useful, but this is fundamental. Some of it can be
given in the school curriculum, and perhaps we can do more along that line. Some
can be given in the Church, if the Church is alert to its opportunities. But
much of it, in fact the very heart of the whole matter, depends on the
individual. The candidate must not expect others to prepare him for the mission
field. They will do what they can, but it is limited. On the candidate himself
rests the responsibility of such a close walk with GOD, and such a full
determination to serve Him well, that the HOLY SPIRIT, the master teacher, can
accomplish that indispensable work of preparation which is His own special
ministry.

~ end of chapter 14 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: 15 - MISSIONARY PREPARATION (CONTINUED)
========================================================================

CHAPTER FIFTEEN MISSIONARY PREPARATION (Continued)

THERE IS NO ONE COURSE of preparation for all missionary service. There can’t
be. The things that missionaries do are too varied. Their fields and the
requirements of their work are too different.

Two missionaries to Central America took identical courses of missionary
preparation. The course included some elementary medical and dental instruction.
It might seem that if either one of them needed that training, the other would
need it, too. But it didn’t turn out that way.

Here is what they told me. One had worked in and around the capital of his
country. At the end of his second term of service he said, “I’ve never had to
use a day of that medical instruction I took.” The other had his field among the
lowland Indians of the Caribbean coast. After an even shorter period of service
he said, “With just that little bit of dental instruction, I have already pulled
a thousand teeth.” This seems quite confusing. How are you going to know what
training to get? How can you tell which course of preparation to follow? Is
there an answer that will cover most cases?

There is indeed. It is a three-fold answer. First, there is some training that
is indispensable. We have already talked about this. Then, there is some
training that is so generally needed that nearly everybody ought to get it.
We’ll talk about this in a moment. And finally, there is some training that
depends on the needs of a particular field or mission; or it depends on your own
talents and interests. This last is the most difficult to talk about. Every case
is different. Not only do they face different circumstances, but not many young
people are really aware of their own abilities and limitations.

Now let’s give attention to the more generally needed types of training.

First is the matter of language. We’ve already said that to be able to express
yourself in English is indispensable. To be able to learn to do it in another
language is almost as important. There are not very many fields where you can
use English effectively in missionary work. Not even in places like Nigeria
where English is taught in the schools. Educated people there do learn to read,
write and speak English; but a message in English doesn’t mean as much to them
as a message in their native tongue. As an educated Filipino said to me one day,
“English speaks to our heads; but our own language speaks to our hearts!”

“That’s all right,” someone will say; “you ought to do a good job studying the
language on the field. But what can you do about it here in the homeland? How
can you fit it into a course of preparation? Our schools don’t teach many
languages.”

That’s perfectly true. There aren’t many cases where you can study here the
language you will use in the field. But that’s no excuse for omitting language
study completely from your course of training. In fact, some mission boards will
insist that you have some language study before they consider your application.
They want to know if you’re likely to be able to learn another language.
Besides, the study of any other language than our own has real value. It helps
us to see that differences of language are not just differences of words. They
are different ways of thinking and of expressing thought. If you have once
learned one foreign language you will find it much easier to undertake others.

It isn’t hard to get a foreign language in your course of preparation. Nearly
all our high schools provide training in one or more foreign languages. As
likely as not, you will have to take one in order to enter college. And you may
have to take two years in some language to graduate. Some Bible institutes also
offer foreign languages. For missionaries it is usually best to choose the
modern languages. That is because they are actually spoken today. They are
usually taught in a somewhat different way from the dead languages, with more
emphasis on pronunciation and conversation. But in some cases the dead languages
may be more useful. If you are going to do translation work, that is,
translation of the Bible, then study Greek and Hebrew. It will help you do a
better job.

Sometimes you can study at home a language that you will use on your field. Then
do it. You can get Spanish in nearly all of our high schools and colleges. And
Spanish is what you will use in most of Latin America. French is also taught in
most of our colleges and in many high schools. You will need French in large
parts of Africa. Portuguese is not so commonly taught, but it is given in a
number of schools. It is useful for Brazil and for the large Portuguese
possessions in Africa. In fact, no matter where you learn it, you are going to
have to know Portuguese before you will be admitted to Angola or Mozambique. The
language requirement for French Africa is not quite so strict, but some day it
may be. The missions themselves make a practice of sending their missionaries
first to France or Belgium for language study before they go on to French Africa
or the Belgian Congo. If you need another language, such as Japanese, Chinese or
Arabic, you will have a harder time getting it. There are not many schools that
teach these languages.

There was a time when many missionaries advised against the study of a native
language in the homeland. Some of them still do. They usually mention two
reasons. One is that you don’t learn the language correctly, especially when it
comes to pronunciation. You need to live among the people to get it right. The
other is that you start talking on the field before you know the people and know
what is wise to say.

There is a good deal of truth in both these reasons. The trouble is that their
importance has been exaggerated. That is, in spite of our better methods of
language teaching, it is still true that many foreign language teachers don’t
really speak well the language they are teaching. They learned it in school
themselves and never had to use it in everyday life. But they make most of their
mistakes in pronunciation and idiom. They are usually able to give a good
foundation in grammar.

Now when you take a language in school, you don’t usually get enough of it to
develop any very fixed habits of pronunciation. That is, any bad habits are not
so fixed that you can’t readily correct them later. On the other hand, see what
our actual experience has been. Some missionaries have studied the language
before going to the field. And in no case has it been a hindrance to them.
Instead, they have usually been able to take part in the work sooner than
others.

Also it is true that a new missionary who knows how to speak the language might
possibly say some unwise things. It’s possible, but it doesn’t often happen. The
reason is that he is usually afraid to say very much. Nearly every new
missionary has to be encouraged to talk. He is even afraid to go out on the
street for fear someone will talk to him, and he may not understand.

Missionaries often do make slips of the tongue. But it is not just the new
missionaries. Neither is it noticeable that those who learned some of the
language at home make any more than the others.

We have said that some people exaggerate the disadvantages of studying the
language in the homeland. We don’t want to go to the other extreme and
exaggerate the advantages. There are some advantages. They are very real
advantages. They warrant your taking classes in the language while you are
preparing for the field. If the course is a concentrated one, it might even
warrant delaying your departure so as to take it. But don’t spend a year or more
after you are ready for the field just taking one of our ordinary language
courses. You can do better on the field.

Here are some of the advantages of studying at home. First, it will give you a
grasp of the grammatical foundations of the language. Then it won’t be entirely
strange and confusing to you when you first get to the field. Those first days
are confusing enough, with all the new things you have to learn and get used to.

Then, such study will take you through the first period of discouragement. There
always comes a time when you think you will never get the language, a time when
you wonder how anyone could ever learn to talk such stuff. Better to undergo
that first discouragement here than out there. A third advantage is that the
study may shorten your stay in the language school. This means that you will be
able to take part in the work sooner. It will save time and money for you and
your supporters. And we haven’t said anything about the attitude of the people
to whom you go. You will find that they deeply appreciate those who can speak to
them in their own tongue from the beginning, even though imperfectly.Perhaps we
ought to note what the British government does with its young men for the
colonial service. It sends them to the School of Oriental and African languages
in London to get training in the language they need. In fact, the school itself
owes much to the co-operation of the government. Yet, if anything, the
missionary has greater need than the civil servant for such training. But there
are many languages that can’t be studied in the homeland, especially in the
United States. Some of them are not taught in our schools. Some have not yet
been reduced to written form. For missionaries who go to places where these
languages are used, other courses are available. A course in general phonetics,
particularly if it has a missionary slant, is valuable for all missionaries.

Phonetics deals with the sounds of human speech. In such a course you learn
about the various speech organs. You learn how to make most of the common speech
sounds and how to recognize them when you hear them. Also you learn how to
describe and classify them.

If you are dealing with a well-known language, phonetics helps you to learn its
sounds more quickly and to produce them more accurately. If you come in contact
with an unwritten language, it enables you to distinguish the sounds it uses and
to reproduce them. It also gives you an accurate way of writing down words and
phrases so you can use them later and teach them to others.

Most missionaries will not really need more than the course in phonetics. But
those who are going to give much of their time to linguistic work on the field,
especially those who reduce languages to writing and translate the Bible, will
need much more. Without doubt the most useful training of this sort for
missionary candidates is that provided by the Summer Institute of Linguistics
(Camp Wycliffe). You can take the foundational course in one summer session of a
little less than three months of intensive work. A second type of training quite
generally needed is in the line of medicine. That is, it is medical instruction
for the average missionary, the one who does not intend to be a doctor or a
nurse.

Every missionary ought to know the elementary things about anatomy and
physiology, hygiene, first aid and care of the sick. Competent medical help in
many fields is still all too little, and too widely scattered, to take care of
all the needs. The missionary ought to know at least how to care for himself and
his family in ordinary circumstances, and he ought to know how to care for an
emergency until he can get a doctor.

Another thing. In some cases, where the law permits, the non-medical missionary
can treat illnesses among the people as far as his knowledge and ability go. He
knows he is not a doctor. But when no doctor can be had, he does what he can.
The need for this medical work by nonmedical missionaries is getting less and
less. There are many more fully trained doctors than there used to be, both
missionary and native. But there are still some places where the need is likely
to continue for some years.

Just how much medical training is advisable for the general missionary? This is
a matter on which there is no general agreement. Too much depends on the
particular field, the government restrictions, and even the personality of the
missionary. The amount of training that might prove very useful to one
missionary might even be dangerous for another with less discretion. But
everyone ought to get instruction in the basic subjects we mentioned above:
anatomy and physiology, hygiene, first aid and care of the sick. For tropical
lands it is good to know something about the more common tropical diseases and
how to treat them. A third type of training, which is even more generally
needed, is training in teaching. We are not talking here about those who are
going to give full time to teaching. Every missionary is a teacher. No matter
what his special ministry may be, he is usually called on to do some teaching.

He may be teaching printing, or nursing, or carpentry; or he may be teaching the
Bible and theology. But whatever his ministry, teaching is a part of it. He is
never just a workman. He is one who inspires and teaches others to do what he
does. So each missionary ought to take some training in the principles of
teaching. His training doesn’t have to be as complete as that of the
professional teacher, but it should give him a grasp of the fundamentals.
Besides, he ought to get some experience in teaching. If he can get it under the
direction of a skilled teacher, so much the better. But if not, he ought to get
the experience of teaching, anyway. For a fourth type of general preparation we
are going to mention bookkeeping and business management. It may amaze some that
these subjects are considered important for most missionaries. Yet mission
leaders have been urging the matter for many years. We are not concerned here
about the general accounts and business affairs of the whole mission. For such
things the mission can usually get someone with special training and experience.
But every mission station has its own accounts to keep and business affairs to
handle. Building, repairing, hiring laborers of all sorts require some ability
in business affairs and accounts.

Schools, Bible institutes, and even “bush” schools make the same demands. And so
do such things as hospitals, printing plants, Colportage work and even Bible
conferences. Many a mission treasurer has groaned over the seeming inability of
some missionaries to keep simple accounts and make intelligible financial
reports.

What is needed for the individual missionary is not a complete business course,
though that has its value. But he does need the principles of bookkeeping. He
can take that in high school and in some Bible institutes. And he ought to have
some business experience. Training in business management of the simple sort the
missionary needs is not so available as bookkeeping. But if he can’t get a
regular course in it, he will usually find that a little business experience is
a great asset.

SPECIALIZATION

Specialization is the order of the day in our American civilization. Men
concentrate their studies not just on one field of knowledge, but on a fragment
of one portion of that field. Such intensive work has produced great results in
the field of the physical sciences. Many people don’t see why it wouldn’t do
just as well in the mission field.Perhaps it might. That is, if the missions had
enough money to employ the large staff of specialists they would need in any one
field. And if there were enough trained specialists volunteering for the work.
And if people didn’t insist on looking at themselves as individuals instead of a
collection of characteristics, and at the Gospel as a whole Gospel for a whole
man. But these conditions don’t exist.

Complete specialization in missions is out of the question. There are some
specialists, some who give their whole time to just one phase of the work. But
the majority of missionaries have to be ready to take on various kinds of work.
They are not jacks-of-all-trades, but they can’t limit themselves to just one,
either. There is so much to be done and so few to do it that sometimes the
missionaries pray, “Lord, deliver us from the specialist, the fellow who won’t
do whatever needs to be done!”

Yet because specialization is normal and valuable, there has always been some of
it in missions.

Every missionary has some things that he does better than others, some interests
that attract him more than others. No matter to what job he is assigned, he will
always find time and place for his special interest. Also, there have always
been certain types of work that demanded the full-time services of specially
trained workers. And present conditions have increased that need for
specialization. So if you want to be a missionary, keep these things in mind.
First, most missionaries have to do more things than the one they like to do
most. Second, if you have real talent and training in a line that is useful to
the work, sooner or later you will have a chance to make use of your specialty.
Third, in some specialized fields your chances to be used full time are quite
broad, while in others they may be very limited.

Medical work more and more calls for the fully trained, full-time doctor or
nurse. There are still a few places where the non-medical missionary can give
some medical help, as we said before, but the number is rapidly decreasing. On
the other hand, the demand for well-trained missionary doctors always exceeds
the supply. Nurses, too, are generally needed. But not in all fields. There are
some fields where foreign doctors are not allowed to practice. There are others
where the local doctors can meet most of the need. So the medical missionary
candidate has to expect some limitation in his choice of field. He may not get
to go to the place he first chooses.

Teaching is another specialized field that often calls for the full-time
services of trained men and women. There are many kinds of teaching, and not all
are carried on in any one field or mission. The teaching and directing of
primary schools is of course the most common, if we don’t count the Bible
schools. Teaching on the high school and college level offers fewer
opportunities, but the supply of teachers is still short of the demand.

Printing is carried on by many separate missions as well as by several missions
working together. It usually calls for a full-time printer, who will also train
and supervise native help.

Trained men are very important in this work, and they are usually in demand. But
you may have less choice of field than in the case of doctors and teachers. As
we get into other technical fields, we find the opportunities even more limited.
Full-time builders are needed, but only by the larger missions. The same is true
of business managers.

Laboratory technicians can be used where there are hospitals. Airplane pilots
usually need to double as mechanics. They can be used in a limited number of
fields where special needs call for missionary aviation.

Radio technicians are needed by the few missionary radio stations. They are also
needed where a mission has set up a short-wave communications system between its
stations. Agricultural experts are very useful in some fields, as well as
teachers of the crafts. And there are other useful specialties too many to
mention. You can see, though, that full-time service in any one of these
specialties may be limited to certain fields and missions.

There is another type of specialization that we ought to deal with. It is the
type that we can best illustrate by speaking of literary work. Very rarely does
a mission send out a new missionary with the express purpose of doing literary
work in another language. Instead, when anyone is set aside for this ministry,
he is usually a veteran missionary. The reason is simple. Training in the United
States is for an English-speaking American public.

It is good as far as it goes. But it usually takes some years for any man to
learn another language well enough to produce a literature in it. Besides, the
missionary doesn’t have to learn just the language.

He has to learn the people. He has to know what needs to be written and how. He
needs to know how the people think, what the background is for their beliefs and
actions. He needs to write, insofar as he can, from their point of view. This
calls for experience in the land and with the people. There are other
specialties like this, too, that are best developed on the field.

It is a weakness in most of our courses of preparation that so many of the
students have no other purpose than just “to be a missionary.” If we ask, “What
kind of missionary?” their answers are very vague. To be well prepared, a
missionary candidate should find out as soon as possible in what kind of service
the Lord can best use him. He may have major and minor interests, but he does
need to have objectives. He needs to realize that evangelism is itself a
specialty and that it takes special preparation. How can he say that he expects
to be an evangelistic missionary if he hasn’t learned to do personal evangelism?
Or hasn’t learned to preach in his own tongue? Or isn’t on familiar terms with
the Gospel message? Or shrinks from contact with new people? And if the
prospective missionary wants to be used in one of these other ways, he should
definitely prepare himself for that service to the best of his ability.

Medical missionaries need to be fully qualified to practice in this country
before they are sent abroad. Teachers usually need to be certified at home. In
addition, for both of them there may be other requirements in the field to which
they are going. They would both have to take courses in Belgium, for example,
before going to the Belgian Congo. And for each one of the technical specialties
the missionary should get the best of training.

Those who handle airplanes, for instance, need more than a private pilot’s
license. A sound aviation program calls for a pilot with at least a commercial
license, and usually a license in aircraft and engine maintenance.We can’t go
further into the matter of specialized preparation. But we do need to remind
ourselves again that training in these specialties doesn’t exempt a candidate
from the basic preparation required of all missionaries. They are missionaries,
too. They must be motivated by the same spirit as the evangelistic missionaries.
Otherwise the work will suffer. Experience has shown us that each new worker
added, if he is not a real missionary, dilutes the spiritual effectiveness of
the work. We need specialists, but missionary specialists.

~ end of chapter 15 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: 16 - MISSION BOARDS - WHY MISSION BOARDS?
========================================================================

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

MISSION BOARDS WHY MISSION BOARDS?

MOST PEOPLE TODAY accept the existence of mission boards without any question.
They are quite the normal thing in missions. They have certain rather definite
duties to perform, and they have clearly been used in the expansion of the
missionary enterprise.

However, there are a number of sincere and devout Christians, including some
missionaries, who are opposed to mission boards. Some base their opposition on
doctrinal grounds, claiming that such organizations are not Scriptural. Others
are governed more by their personal situation and interests. Some have used such
catch-phrases as “It is better to have a Rock under your feet than a board
behind your back.” As if you couldn’t have both!

We can state the opposition on Scriptural grounds quite simply. Generally those
who hold this position are opposed to most formal organization in the Church.
They take it for granted that the New Testament gives us a complete and detailed
pattern of all that a Christian Church ought to be and do. This includes the
methods by which we are to carry on missionary work. We should have no other
organization than what we find in the pages of the New Testament. And of course
we find no mission boards there.

We respect the sincere faith and earnest zeal of those who hold this view. Some
of them have done very good missionary work. Yet they represent the view of only
a small minority of all earnest Christians. And most of us don’t find in the
Scriptures themselves any claim to such finality in matters of organization and
methods. In doctrine, yes. The New Testament does present JESUS CHRIST as GOD’s
final and complete revelation. It pronounces an anathema on all who would preach
any other Gospel than what it presents. But we think it is a mistake to extend
those claims of finality in doctrine to matters of organization. In fact, the
New Testament itself does not give a unified picture of organization and
procedure.

What it does give us is a picture of development under the guidance of the HOLY
SPIRIT, a developing organization to meet the needs as they arose. CHRIST left
only the nucleus of an organization in the eleven apostles. After His ascension
they chose another to complete the original number of Twelve. The Church in
Jerusalem grew so fast that soon they had to create the office of deacon to take
proper care of needy members.

We don’t know when the elders in Jerusalem were first chosen, or why. But we can
see the similarity to the Jewish synagogue with which they were familiar. We can
also see the need for such officers when the apostles themselves began to die
off or to leave for other fields. When Barnabas and Paul started the first
churches in Asia Minor, they reversed the procedure. They appointed elders
first, since the apostles didn’t stay with the churches. The deacons seem to
have come later as they were needed.

Mission boards in their modern sense don’t appear in the New Testament. In fact,
we have had Them for only a little over a century and a half. But the basic
principle on which they are organized agrees fully with New Testament teaching.
As we stated before, CHRIST laid the responsibility for carrying out His Great
Commission on The Church as a whole, as well as on individuals. And clearly the
New Testament Church recognized that responsibility, even though it didn’t see
just how far it was to go. So when Philip started the work in Samaria, the
Church at Jerusalem sent an official delegation to confirm it. When Peter
preached to Cornelius, his conduct was officially reviewed by the Church. The
decision in that case was to be the deciding factor in their approval of the
work of Barnabas and Paul, years later. When the Church began in Antioch, the
Church sent Barnabas to confirm the believers in their faith. And when Barnabas
and Saul started on their first missionary tour, it was the Church at Antioch
that sent them forth, by direction of the HOLY SPIRIT. They also reported to the
Church there when they returned. But the Church did not take on financial
responsibility for any of its missionaries. That is a very modern development.
Neither did it dictate where they were to go, nor how they were to carry on The
work. These men were pioneers, and there was no one able to instruct them. Later
on, Paul himself does give some very definite instructions to the younger
missionaries, Timothy and Titus. Also, though the Church at Antioch didn’t
provide their financial needs, other churches did send help to them on various
occasions. And of course, as happens in some places today, the people to whom
they ministered would often see that they had food and shelter. The modern
mission board is intended to represent the Church in the carrying out of its
missionary task. It is formed within the Church and is the servant of the
Church. Its constitution and practices reflect the Church that it represents.
And since there are a number of different denominations, their boards may have
different practices. The funds that the mission board has to use are the gifts
of the members of the Church. So it is responsible to the Church for the
handling of them. Of course there are a number of boards that are not
denominational. But they are still representative. They represent a large and
growing number of independent churches, plus many groups and individuals within
the denominations, people who for one reason or another are interested in their
work. These boards are not so immediately responsible to their supporters, but
The work depends on keeping their interest and support. In fact, this support is
more spontaneous and less regular than that of the denominations, so the mission
is apt to be more sensitive to the attitudes of its supporters. One such
independent board finally developed its own denomination in the United States.

We need mission boards for the effective, systematic spread of the Gospel, just
as the Jerusalem Church needed deacons for the fair, systematic distribution of
material help to needy believers. It can’t be done on an “every-man-for-himself”
basis. It is the Church’s business, and that means co-operation. And
co-operation calls for some sort of organization.

Take, for example, the handling of the Church’s gifts for missions. In a large
mission, operating in several fields, this is a big job. It isn’t just a matter
of sending a salary to each missionary in The field. That would be simple, even
if you had to vary the salary according to the size of each family. But there
are other things to consider. Living costs are different in every field, and
they often change rapidly. Money exchange rates are always changing. The
American dollar that will get you five dollars in one country will get only
sixty cents in another. The board takes this into account.

Then there are expenses for building, for running schools and hospitals, for
printing, for travel, for a multitude of other things that are needed to carry
on the mission. And besides, the churches don’t give with regularity. Giving
reaches its peak just before the end of the year, partly because of Christmas
but even more because of the income tax deadline. On the other hand, the summer
months are very slim. Business is slack, Church attendance is off, and many
people are spending Their money on vacations instead of missions. Yet the
missionary needs the same support in the summer as in the winter. The board
plans the handling of funds to take care of these matters.

We need the mission boards also to represent the work at home. If missions is
the Church’s job, if the churches are to support the work spiritually and
financially, they must have reports on how it is going. Interest has to be fed
by information.

It is entirely possible for the missionaries themselves to keep up a certain
amount of interest by personal letters and by their visits while on furlough.
That is good, but it is not enough. Most churches don’t have any personal touch
with more than one or two missionaries, if at all. Then too, most missionaries
are not well acquainted with the work outside their own stations. Their letters
and their talks deal mostly with their own personal experiences.

Only the mission board is in a position to view the whole field and present a
balanced picture of progress and needs. It usually tries to do this through the
mission magazine, or through visits to The churches by secretaries and others.
Sometimes it sponsors the taking of motion pictures or slides that can be shown
in the churches to represent the whole work. Or it helps promote missionary
education in the churches, providing the needed plans and literature. Or it
plans and conducts missionary conferences. Of course mission boards are needed
to secure, examine and counsel missionary candidates. The local Church is not in
a position to do this. It may know the candidate and his spiritual fitness, but
it doesn’t know the field and its needs.

Then when the new missionary is ready to leave for the field, he needs counsel
and help in purchasing, shipping, getting transportation, etc. Here, too, the
mission board is needed. And there are many other ways in which it proves its
value.We have said that mission boards are usually taken for granted. But there
are many who criticize Them without good ground because they think they are too
expensive for the work they do.

Several years ago a certain writer published the claim that one denomination was
spending 87percentof its missionary income on overhead expenses. He justified
this claim on the ground that each missionary got a salary of $1000peryear, and
that when you multiplied that by the number of missionaries it only accounted
for 13percentof the total expenditures. All the rest, he concluded, was
overhead. This was far from true. The salary of the individual missionary was
indeed $1000. But that didn’t include rent, medical allowances, group insurance,
pension payments, and emergency payments in certain critical areas. It didn’t
even include allowances for the children. The actual average support for each
missionary that year came to more than $2000. But this is not all. Missionaries
had to be transported to and from the field. They had to travel on The field.
They had to be equipped for their work. They had to be provided with literature.

Equipment and supplies for hospitals and dispensaries were expensive.
Seminaries, Bible schools and schools of other types took money. As a matter of
fact, the board’s financial report for that year showed less than 9percentspent
at home, while more than 91 cents out of every dollar contributed was spent on
the field.

It may be that some boards are not as economical as they should be. But it is
doubtful whether any business concern doing business abroad is getting by with
as low a percentage of overhead as the most extravagant mission board. end of
chapter 16


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: 17 - MISSION BOARDS (CONTINUED)
========================================================================

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN MISSION BOARDS (Continued) TYPES OF MISSION BOARDS

MOST MISSION BOARDS may be divided into two general types: denominational and
independent. We shall talk about the denominational boards first. Even though
their work in recent years has not been growing as rapidly as that of the
independent boards, and in many cases has declined, it still represents the
greater part of Protestant missionary effort. In the United States today the
denominational mission board is usually set up by the denomination and is under
the control of the denomination. It is not independent of the churches but is
considered to be the organization through which the churches carry on their
missionary work. It is the denomination at work for missions.

Also in the United States it is usual for each denomination to have only one
board of foreign missions; or, in some of the larger denominations, a general
board and a women’s board. These boards are under the control of the governing
body of the denomination and they make their reports to it.

Denominational missions of course depend on the churches of their denomination
to provide both the funds and the manpower for their missionary work. Candidates
are expected to belong to churches of the denomination. There are very few
exceptions. The larger denominational boards often have work in a number of
different fields. Although they do set up a field organization in each of these
places, the board at home has the over-all supervision and has final authority.
In earlier days the missionaries often had reason to criticize the boards
because they didn’t understand the situation on the field. Today this is not
nearly so true. The boards often appoint experienced missionaries as secretaries
and have them visit the fields periodically to keep in touch with what is going
on.

Even though each Church in a denomination may be given a quota for its
missionary giving, the offerings in the churches are still voluntary. The board
may make an appeal for money, but that is as far as it can go. Its income
depends on the generosity of the members of the churches. It draws up its annual
budget and makes its plans on the basis of what it estimates will be the
probable giving during the year. When the board appoints a missionary, it puts
him on a regular salary. This salary is always small, and it has no relation to
the value of his work. Missionary salaries are not competitive.

Perhaps they ought rather to be called living allowances. The amount varies from
field to field according to the cost of living. It is proportionately more for
those who have children, since it is based on needs instead of merit. And
because it is only intended to cover the needs of the missionary and his family,
the mission does not usually care to appoint missionaries who have dependent
relatives or unpaid debts. They wouldn’t be able to meet these extra
obligations.

One problem in mission financing has always been hard to solve. People just
don’t like to give to mission boards. Whatever the reason, many of them prefer
to give to individual missionaries or to special projects. This has forced
missions to adopt various plans of “personalized giving.”

Generally the idea is that one or more churches may take on the support of a
missionary and consider him their missionary. The missionary then keeps in touch
with his supporting Church and, if it is not his own home Church, he is expected
to visit it when he is home on furlough. The amount of his allowance is set by
the board in every case, but it is provided by a specific Church. The
independent missions are so called because they are not under the control of a
Church or denomination. They usually have a self-perpetuating board of
directors. That is, if one member of the board resigns or dies, the others elect
a man to take his place. In many cases the missionaries themselves are not
considered employees of the mission but members of it, having a voice in all its
affairs. Sometimes churches and individuals who donate to the mission more than
a stated amountperyear are considered members with a right to vote in the annual
meeting. A large part of the independent missions, though not all, are called
faith missions. They got this name, not because they claimed to have more faith
than others, but because of their financial principles. They make it a rule not
to make any direct appeal for funds except to GOD alone.

They believe He will move upon the hearts of Christians to give for any work
that is truly of Him. Of course their missionaries can’t be assured of any
stated salary. They have to look to the Lord to send in what they need. Such a
plan sounds utterly visionary. But it works. In fact, it has proved very
successful in many missions. The independent missions get their support from the
growing number of independent churches in the homeland as well as from many
people and even churches within the denominations. Some simply prefer the
independent missions to their denominational missions. Others have enough
interest to make these donations above and beyond what their quota is in the
denomination.

Denominational stalwarts don’t like the idea. They do their best to oblige the
people to give all their gifts just to the denomination. But they usually find
that you can’t control free-will giving.

Some of the independent missions, especially among the Baptists, are really
denominational in character. They are not under the control of the denomination,
and sometimes they adopt the faith principle of financing, but in other ways
they are denominational. If they are Baptist, all the members of the mission
have to be Baptist; candidates are told that they must be Baptist “by principle,
not for convenience”; and the churches they establish on the field are Baptist
both in name and in practice.But perhaps the largest part of the independent
missions are interdenominational faith missions. That is, their membership and
support comes from different evangelical denominations as well as from the
independent churches. They are conservative in theology. They usually hold to a
brief doctrinal statement that covers the fundamentals of the faith but omits
some of the controversial points that have separated the denominations. On this
basis they welcome Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists and
many others into their fellowship. The first of these interdenominational
missions, and the one that has served as a pattern for many others, is the China
Inland Mission. It was founded in England in 1865 by Dr. J. Hudson Taylor.

Taylor had spent several years in China as a missionary and then returned home
broken in health. But he had a continuing passion for the conversion of the
Chinese people.

Without going into details, these are the facts that led to the starting of the
mission. Taylor was burdened for the vast interior of China. But it was not
really open at the time. Besides, the missions already in China did not believe
they could take on any more responsibilities than what they already had. To
reach the interior a new mission would be needed. But it wouldn’t have any
denomination to sponsor it.

Now Taylor in his experience had come to several conclusions. One was the
conviction that “GOD’s work done in GOD’s way will not lack GOD’s supply.” If
this was true, then it would be wrong to go into debt. Why should we try to
borrow from men what GOD has seen fit to withhold? Taylor was also sure that
evangelism was the great need of inland China. For that purpose it was not
necessary to insist on missionaries who had all the educational preparation
usually required. He believed the mission boards were passing over many who
might prove very useful missionaries. But while Taylor had learned to trust GOD
for his own needs without making appeals to men, it would be different to form a
mission on that basis. What if he should get young people out to China, and then
the funds should fail? Could he carry such a responsibility? His reluctance was
not overcome until he came to realize that if GOD was moving him to start the
mission, the responsibility was GOD’s, not his. In that confidence he went
ahead. In the missions that have followed the example of the China Inland
Mission, the following principles are generally observed: (1) No solicitation of
funds or missionaries is permitted. (2) No debts are allowed. (3) No salary is
guaranteed. (4) Missionary candidates from any evangelical denomination are
acceptable. (5) Evangelistic work is to have first place.

Even though they hold to the faith principle in financing, not all the faith
missions use the same plan. There is room for a great deal of diversity.
However, in general two main plans, with modifications, seem to stand out.

First is the pooling plan. Under this plan all gifts for missionary support are
put into one common fund, or pool. When the regular distribution is made,
usually once a month, each missionary gets his share. Single missionaries in the
same field all get the same amount. Married missionaries get a larger amount,
depending on the number of children they have. There are other details, but the
principle is that of share and share alike. The missions usually set up some
definite amount as an objective, an amount that they think will cover the
missionary’s needs. The larger missions can foretell with reasonable accuracy
their probable receipts, so they draw up a budget on that basis. The pooling
plan has several advantages. It avoids inequalities among the missionaries,
since all share alike. The missionary with a thrilling story to tell gets no
more than the one whose service is more humdrum but perhaps just as valuable.
Even if people at home try to by-pass the rule and send their gifts directly to
the missionary, it makes no difference. He has to report these direct receipts,
and they are counted in the common pool and deducted from his next remittance.
Most missions do, however, permit bona fide gifts for such things as birthdays,
Christmas, a new baby, etc, without their entering into the pool. The plan
impresses upon the missionary the need of praying for the needs of the whole
mission and not just his own. When one profits, all profit; when one gets a
short remittance, they are all short. No one is ever left completely without
support, even if his supporting Church drops him. This tends to greater unity in
the mission and exalts the mission above the individual missionary. But the plan
also has some weaknesses. It has happened that missions have sent to the field
more missionaries than they could support properly. Then all the missionaries
suffered hardship. (Though it should be said to the credit of the missionaries
that they didn’t complain.) But the greatest weakness is in the attitude of the
donors at home. There are many who insist that they want their gifts to go
wholly to the missionary they are supporting. They don’t want them pooled. No
amount of explanation will satisfy them. If the missionary doesn’t get just what
they send, then they won’t send. That is what has given rise to the second plan,
the individual support plan. Under this plan the individual missionary gets
exactly whatever his friends and supporters give for him. It may be much or
little. But it must be specified for him. The mission will provide information
about the amount he should have to be properly supported, but it doesn’t take
responsibility for his support.

However, it does make this provision. All unspecified gifts to the mission are
put into a general fund. This fund is meant to cover all expenses except the
missionary’s personal support. If the missionary does not get enough personal
support for his needs, the mission may add to his income from the general fund,
provided there is enough money to do so. The individual support plan also has
some advantages. It capitalizes on the desire of so many donors to give to
individual missionaries. And it makes a close bond between them and the
missionary they support. It also spurs the missionary to keep in touch with the
people who support him. He can’t count on being carried along by what the others
are able to do. But it also has its weaknesses. Gifts to the general fund are
usually insufficient. Too many people prefer to give to a person rather than to
the mission. Then some missionaries get better support than others whose work is
equally valuable.They may have more friends or may be better at inspiring
interest through their talks and letters. And because the worker is more
prominent than the work, the sense of unity in the mission is weakened. The
picture we have given of these two plans is not complete. We have oversimplified
it. What most missions do is use one or another of the basic plans with
modifications. This has become more and more true of those that use the
individual support plan.

Today it is not at all uncommon for such a mission to expect a missionary to get
both personal and service support. That is, a certain part of the funds donated
for him is designated as service support. This money is to cover services
rendered by the mission on behalf of the missionary, but which he does not
personally pay. It may include such things as the cost of sending his money to
him, his rent, and his share in any number of other expenditures for his
benefit. This relieves some of the pressure on the usually depleted general
fund.

Each mission is willing to explain its plan of financing to a donor or candidate
on request.

~ end of chapter 17 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: 18 - HOW TO CHOOSE A MISSION
========================================================================

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN HOW TO CHOOSE A MISSION TO MANY PEOPLE the choice of a mission
is no problem at all. They are members of one of our Protestant denominations.
They either have a general call or are called to a specific field in which their
denomination is working. And they see no reason why they should not be accepted
and work in harmony with their denominational board.

There are advantages in working with the mission of your own denomination. As a
missionary it makes you feel that you represent not just the Church to which you
belong but the whole denomination. Other churches besides your own are
presumably interested in your work. In addition, you work on the field with
other missionaries who come from churches like your own. Their doctrinal views
are largely the same. The churches they have started use an organization you are
familiar with. And in other ways you are made to feel at home. Sometimes, too,
you will find in the mission an organizational and financial stability that are
not always present in the independent missions. But for some, even in the
denominations, the matter is not that simple. There are reasons why they
hesitate to ask for appointment under the denominational board. The board
doesn’t always appreciate those reasons, but they are very real to the
missionary volunteer.

One of the main reasons is theological modernism. Not in the official statements
of belief. There are probably none of our denominations that have adopted
officially modernistic creeds. So there are many churches that have not followed
the modernistic trend and are considered decidedly conservative in their
denomination. It is also true that there are many members of modernistic
churches who are not in sympathy with their modernism but have not yet come to
the place of leaving them.

Conditions are not the same in all denominations. Neither are they the same in
all mission fields of any one denomination. But it is not at all uncommon to
have a young person say, “I would prefer not to serve under my denominational
board; it is too modernistic.”

We have mentioned that the board often doesn’t appreciate this viewpoint. It
says that it hasn’t any objection to the candidate’s holding to his more
conservative beliefs if he wants to. It can’t understand why he won’t be just as
tolerant of the beliefs of others. But it is more than a matter of personal
viewpoints. It is a matter of basic principles. We can be tolerant of others’
beliefs if the differences are not important to us. We can’t be so tolerant if
we believe they are basic issues. In such a case the candidate’s hesitation is
perfectly proper. If the missionaries themselves are not agreed on their
message, how can their mission be successful? And if a missionary cannot have
spiritual fellowship with the other missionaries, how can he stand the strain of
missionary life and give good service?

There are others who do not want to work with their denominational boards
because they believe they have been called to another field or type of ministry
than the ones in which their board is engaged. Sometimes this happens when the
board’s ministry is almost wholly institutional and not evangelistic. For it is
true that in some of the major denominational missions evangelism holds a very
minor place.

Then there are some who might like to work with their denomination but can’t
meet the requirements, especially in educational preparation. And there are
actually quite a few young people who have come to dislike the narrow
denominationalism of their churches and would like to serve in a broader
fellowship.

Add to these the members of the many independent churches, and members of
denominations too small to support an extensive missionary work of their own,
and we have a large group of young people who want to know how to choose a
mission board. Their choice is made doubly hard because many of the independent
missions work in only one field, so that the choice of a mission is also the
choice of a field.

If the young volunteer is sure of his field, the following suggestions will be
helpful: (1) Find out what boards are in that field. (2) Get all the information
you can about the missions there and the work they are doing. (3) Write to those
with which you might be interested in serving. Tell them of your interest and
ask for more information about the mission, its organization, principles,
requirements, etc. Don’t fail to tell them also something about yourself, so
they can tell whether to encourage you. (4) If possible, have personal
interviews with mission representatives and individual missionaries. (5) Above
all, and through all, wait upon the Lord for guidance.

There may be a special divine call to a certain work. But at any rate there
should be a wholehearted conviction that the mission you choose is where GOD
wants you.

If the prospective missionary is not sure of his field, he may do one of two
things. He may wait until the Lord shows him the field. Or he may choose a
mission on its own merits without reference to the field, under GOD’s guidance.
This latter course of action is usually the better. We have already seen that a
missionary call is not necessarily associated with any particular field of
service. It is quite a common thing for zealous young missionary volunteers to
be uncertain about their precise fields. If they waited to be sure of the field
before approaching a mission, many would never reach any field. The relative
unimportance of knowing the exact field is seen in the fact that many a
missionary today is serving successfully in a different field from the one he
first had in mind. In fact, hundreds of missionaries have been transferred from
one field to another without losing any of their effectiveness. See where the
China missionaries are today.

Much more important is the mission board. A real missionary is seldom
disappointed in his field after he gets there. But there are all too many
occasions when he becomes disappointed in the mission with which he is working.
It is amazing how little attention many pay to these things. As if the people
you work with in the Lord’s service were always easy to get along with and never
succumbed to temptation!

There are a number of specific things about a mission that every candidate ought
to find out if he can. We shall list some of them here in the form of questions,
not necessarily in the order of importance. (1) Doctrinal standards - What is
the theological position of the mission and its missionaries? It is easy to get
the answer to this question. The mission usually has an official doctrinal
statement that it publishes from time to time in its magazine. If not, it will
gladly send it to you. Do you agree with it fully? If you have any hesitation,
move slowly. Of course if you are not in full sympathy with what it stands for,
the mission probably wouldn’t accept your application anyway. (2) Finances - Are
the mission accounts regularly audited? Is the audit published so that anyone
may examine it? For most people it makes dull reading, but you can well be
suspicious of any mission that doesn’t publish such a statement.

What plan of missionary support is used: pooling, individual support, or some
modification? You may not have any preference, but you ought to know which is
used. Are the missionaries well cared for? This is not always easy to find out.
But it might influence your decision, especially under the pooling plan. (3)
Origin and aims - How and why did the mission start? If it is a split off from
another group, why? If the reason was good and sound, the mission itself will
not hesitate to tell about it. If it does hesitate, be careful. Is the mission
meeting a real need? That is, is it performing a service that is badly needed
and that no other group could do? Or is it in the same area with other good
missions and competing with them? There is more of this than the people at home
realize. It may be best to get this information from sources outside the mission
itself. (4) Organization and methods - Young people themselves are not often the
best judges in this matter. Yet they should not be so willfully blind as the
pastor who wrote us for information about a certain questionable mission. He
said, “Please tell me about its doctrinal position and its financial honesty; I
am not interested in its methods.”Is the control in the hands of one or two
individuals? In very small missions this may not be significant, but a personal
or family dictatorship never works out well. Incorporation doesn’t mean a thing
in this regard; it has to do only with the conduct of financial affairs. On the
other hand, it is just as dangerous for the individual missionary to have too
much independence. There needs to be authority which is recognized and obeyed.
Who is on the governing board of the mission? Who sponsors its work? Don’t be
misled by socalled “councils of reference.” These are just lists of men who have
been persuaded to allow their names to be used to recommend the mission. They
may know something about its affairs, but just as often they don’t. They are
window-dressing. They have no authority in the mission itself. (5) Fellowship -
Missionary relationships on the field are so close that it is important to have
a good basis for real fellowship. A fellowship that might be very enjoyable to
one might not suit another at all. For this reason it is good to have an
opportunity to get acquainted with some of the missionaries before going to the
field.

Often after meeting the leaders of the work you may ask yourself this question,
“Are these the kind of leaders I would be glad to follow, people who would
inspire me to my best service for the Lord?”

Another practical question. Are the other missionaries of your nationality and
culture? It is not easy to be a foreigner in a foreign land and at the same time
feel that you are a foreigner in the mission. Some of us can find congenial
service with those of another nationality; but we need to face the fact that the
adjustment is more than many are able to make with real success. We ought to,
but we don’t. (6) Reputation - Does the mission have a good name among other
missions? Remember, other missions on the field are in a better position to
judge of the value of a work than are any of the people in the homeland. And
they are usually inclined to be charitable in their judgments. One or two might
possibly give a bad report through jealousy; but if several agree in such a
report it is best to be wary.

You can judge the interdenominational missions on this point by seeing whether
they are members of the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association of North
America (IFMA).

Only missions of good reputation are accepted into this association. They must
also be interdenominational missions, evangelical in their theology, follow the
faith principle of missionary operation, and publish an annual audit of their
accounts. Missions in the association have a total missionary force of well over
five thousand missionaries. (7) Missionary turnover - Do the missionaries
generally stay with the mission? Allow for some who have to leave the field
because of illness or some other good reason. But does the number of those who
leave the mission in a comparatively short time seem unreasonably high? Do they
go back for a second, third and other terms of service? An unusually high
turnover means there is something wrong, regardless of the reasons the
missionaries may give for their leaving.

Although the suggestions we have just made are useful, they will not settle the
question for you. The decision is yours. There are some factors in the decision
that are known only to you and GOD. Be frank with Him, and let Him lead you to
the best choice.

~ end of chapter 18 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 19: 19 - INDEPENDENT MISSIONS
========================================================================

CHAPTER NINETEEN INDEPENDENT MISSIONARIES ON THE FRINGE of the missionary
movement are a great many independent missionaries. They are called independent
missionaries because they are not connected with any organized missionary
society. Each one carries on his work independent of anyone else, and usually
independent of any authority in the homeland.

There are a number of reasons for these independent missionaries. A large part
of them originally went to the field under some organized society. Then, for one
reason or another, they withdrew from the society but decided to keep on working
in the field. Some of them are individuals who find it hard to work in harmony
with others, or to submit to authority. In other cases their mission itself was
at least partly at fault. But in any case they are missionaries who don’t join
another society but go on working alone.

There are others who go to the field independently because they haven’t found a
mission that would accept them. It may be a matter of health, or age, or some
other lack in their qualifications. But when the regular missions turn them
down, they somehow find a way of getting enough financial support to go to the
field on their own. A third group are those who believe they have a call to a
specific field but can’t find a satisfactory mission in that field. There may be
some extremists among them who are very hard to please, or even some who don’t
want to be limited by authority over them. But often their argument is perfectly
valid that there is no suitable mission for them in that particular field. A
last group, and one that we are going to deal with separately, is what are
commonly called nonprofessional missionaries. Some of them are Christians whom
circumstances have taken to other lands, where they do what they can in a
missionary way. Others are earnest believers who have deliberately chosen to go
to foreign countries to practice their trade or profession in order that they
may also do some missionary work. They support themselves by their earnings, try
to live a consistent Christian life, and devote their spare time to witnessing
for CHRIST. The two groups to which we are going to give most of our attention
are the second and third.

These are the ones who deliberately choose to go to the field independent of any
mission society and give their full time to the work. They are constantly
approaching missionary counselors, explaining what they want to do and then
asking, “Would you advise me to go out independently?”

I have never yet heard of an experienced missionary who answered yes to such a
question. He will usually give a number of reasons why such a course is very
unwise. But he is often too polite to mention two basic questions that the
inquirer ought to face. The first is this, “If the regular missions have turned
you down, are you really fit for missionary service?” The missions do sometimes
make mistakes. Sometimes they turn down a candidate who would make a good
missionary. More often they accept one who should not be accepted. But they are
less liable to mistakes than is any individual. Before going ahead, make doubly
sure that it is really the mission that is making the mistake and not you.
Remember that if you couldn’t succeed in the mission you will stand even less
chance independently. The second question is for those who can’t find a
satisfactory mission in their chosen field. “Just why are you so sure that you
should go to that field and not to any other?” Sometimes the candidate speaks
quite confidently of a call. And of course if it is GOD’s calling none of us
would want to stand in the way. But there are so many imitations of the call of
GOD. There are so many young people who feel attracted to certain fields without
knowing a thing about the real situation and needs there. It is the fields that
attract them, not needy human beings. Be sure it is GOD’s call and not the echo
of your own desires.

Now there may be an overpowering reason or a distinct call that will lead a
missionary into independent work. But before he decides to undertake it, and
before any local Church decides to sponsor any such activity, they should both
know some of the handicaps that will have to be faced.

First of all, there are some fields today into which no missionary can gain an
entrance unless he comes as the representative of a recognized society. This is
not because the government discriminates against one form of Christianity or
another. It is simply that it has found it much better to deal with responsible
organizations than with every Tom, Dick and Harry.

Second, just where are you going and what is the need there? When a
well-organized board decides to open a new field, it doesn’t blindly plunge into
it. First of all it makes a careful survey to find out what the needs are. It
consults with other missions in the field so as not to duplicate what they are
doing. In the light of these studies it plans its occupation. The independent
missionary almost never does this. His choice of a location is largely a
hit-ormiss proposition. And more often than not he hits on a place where he
comes into competition with other missions. But he seldom mentions it in his
letters home. Of course there are great needs in most fields. So if the
independent missionary will work in cooperation with others, letting his work
supplement theirs, he can often find a niche where he can make a real
contribution. He may even, after a time, be accepted into the ranks of the
mission. It has happened. But most independent missionaries are intent on
starting a work all of their own, be it ever so ting and evanescent.A serious
practical difficulty that faces the independent missionary from the beginning is
his lack of experienced counsel. He doesn’t know what kind nor how much of an
outfit to take with him.

He can easily arrange transportation in normal times to the principal ports or
airports; but the newcomer without help who tries to proceed inland soon finds
himself at the mercy of any glib swindler with a smattering of English. For of
course he doesn’t know the language of the country, and he is not familiar with
its currency nor the legitimate prices. Not knowing where to find lodging, he
usually takes advantage of the hospitality of some other missionary. (I have
often admired the long-suffering generosity of missionaries in the major cities.
How often they are imposed on!) At every step in his inexperience he makes
unnecessary blunders from which the counsel of others could have saved him. And
what work is he going to do? Supposing he has somehow learned the language, and
found or built a suitable house, and learned how to get along in the land, what
will his ministry be? At home he would be called to the pastorate of a Church
already established and would find that a big enough job for one man. Here he
can’t possibly do all that needs to be done.

There’s the literature, for example. Even supposing the Bible has already been
translated into the language of his people, where is he going to get the other
Christian literature -the Sunday school lessons, the devotional books, the
Christian magazines - that are so helpful to the pastor at home? And who will
teach his teachers? Who will train his young people for Christian service?

Missionary work is just too big for anyone person. It calls for co-operation.
And even as the work is too big for the independent missionary working alone, so
the independent Church coming from his ministry is too small for satisfactory
Christian fellowship and service. We often see this in the experience of the
young people. When the time comes to marry, they are told that they should marry
in the Church. Yet their own Church fellowship is so limited that they have
little choice. The result is that many marry outside the Church and are lost to
it. And who has ever attended a conference of churches on the mission field and
has not been thrilled at the joy of some of the believers when they see that
their small congregation is a part of a much larger fellowship! But the final
and often the greatest test of the work of the independent missionary comes when
he must leave that work. It may be for furlough; it may be permanently. Furlough
always is a problem. It is a problem even when someone else can fill in for the
missionary on furlough. But in the organized mission the problem is minimized.
Usually another missionary is assigned to relieve the one on furlough. Or if
not, the mission makes some other provision to take care of the work while he is
away. It is not likely to be dropped. The independent missionary has only one
choice. Either he must stay on at the risk of a complete breakdown in health, or
he must abandon the work for the time of furlough at the risk of a breakdown in
the work. Whichever he does, the work is likely to suffer.

Sometimes young people have objected, “But he ought to have a national worker
prepared to take over by the time he goes home on furlough.” Such a statement is
only a demonstration of the prevailing ignorance in this country about
missionary work. Unless he is building on another’s foundation, the missionary
will never have a worker prepared to take full responsibility for the work in
just one term. If he could, there would be no excuse for his going back to that
place. But it just doesn’t happen.And of course when the independent missionary
dies or has to leave the field permanently, he has even less choice. The best
thing is to ask some mission to take over the work. But what happens more often
is that the work is abandoned.

NONPROFESSIONAL MISSIONARIES

We have already said what the nonprofessional missionaries are. In one sense
they are independent, for they are not definitely connected with a mission
society. In another sense they are not, for they seldom attempt a complete
missionary ministry apart from what others are doing. They might rather be
called auxiliary missionaries.

There are some very real values in the service of these part-time missionaries.
One value is the same as the value of the testimony of the Christian businessman
in the United States. It helps people to realize that Christianity is not just
for the preachers; it is a vital faith in everyday life.

Rightly or wrongly, some people get the idea that Christianity for the preacher
is a livelihood; for the businessman it is a conviction.

Besides this, the businessman can sometimes reach individuals and even groups
that are closed to the missionary. In his contacts with other businessmen and in
his relations with government officials he can often speak a word in season
about his Saviour. He may even get into a lengthy discussion of the Christian
faith. People don’t think this is inappropriate in other lands, where religious
discussions are often more common than in America. A third advantage of the
nonprofessional missionary is that he may at times get an entrance into lands
that are closed to regular missionaries. That is, he gets in not as a missionary
but as a businessman, an engineer, a professor. And if he is wise and tactful in
his approach he may prove the opening wedge for the full proclamation of the
Gospel at a later date. At any rate he can commend it by his sincere profession
of faith and Christian manner of living. But don’t think that there are no
handicaps! There are a number of them, and they ought to be clearly understood.
If you understand them they will take away the false impression that this is an
easier and more effective way of doing missionary work. It is surprising how
many get that false idea. It is a valuable service, and one in which we wish
there were many more Christians engaged. But it is not easy; and its
effectiveness is not to be compared with that of the full-time missionaries.
Here are three of the reasons.

First, the one who is hired to do any secular job is expected to give full-time
service on that job.

He is not paid to be a missionary but to be a geologist, an engineer, a doctor,
or whatever his profession or vocation is. It is only his spare time that he can
devote to missionary work. That is, aside from casual conversations in the
course of his work. And after a full day of hard work, it takes real
consecration to take on other responsibilities of a missionary sort. Of course,
too, his Christian service is limited to the immediate neighborhood of the place
where he works. He is not free to take any long trips except on vacation. A
second handicap is often found in the nature of his work. Most such men are in
the employ of American companies. So naturally the people think of them
primarily as employees of the company. Their interests are the same as the
company’s interests. If the people think, as they often do, that the company is
exploiting them for its own advantage, then its foreign employees are a part of
the plan. If they preach the Gospel. it is so the people will be more pliable
tools of the company. Even full-time missionaries are accused of being paid
agents of the American government. It is no wonder that an employee of a large
American firm is suspected, and with much better reason.

Finally, the one who plans to be a nonprofessional missionary may find himself
seriously hampered by the ones he works for and with. The company itself is not
likely to be very much interested in his purpose. Not that it is opposed to
Christianity as such. Rather, it just doesn’t want its employees engaged in any
activities that might put the company in a bad light and jeopardize its
earnings. In some countries this may not be much of a problem. In others, as in
strongly Muslim countries, it may be a serious one.

Then too, the worker needs to realize that he may be working in a non-Christian
land with fellow Americans who are also non-Christian in their manner of living.
That is, many of those who go overseas for business reasons may be members of
Christian churches at home, but they appear to leave their Christian principles,
with their membership, at home. As Dan Crawford once wrote about Central Africa,
“In this climate European meat goes bad, European dogs go bad, and European
morals go bad.” The worker may be fortunate enough to find some good Christian
fellowship in his work. There are indeed a number of fine Christian businessmen
to be found in many lands. But in most cases the situation will be just the
opposite. He must be prepared to stand alone, if need be, and to resist the
constant pull that would bring him down to the level of the others. His very
loneliness will make the temptations all the stronger.

No, it is not an easy service, and the visible results are often disappointing.
But it is a valuable service, principally for those who could not qualify for
full-time missionary service. This is one thing that must be borne in mind. It
is for those who have not been called to a fulltime ministry but are willing to
carry on their trade or profession in a foreign land where their witness for
CHRIST may help bring men to Him. If supposedly Christian businessmen abroad
were as zealous for their faith as are the Muslim traders in Africa, what a
tremendous effect their witness could have!

~ end of chapter 19 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 20: 20 - WHAT A MISSIONARY DOES
========================================================================

CHAPTER TWENTY WHAT A MISSIONARY DOES THE TITLE OF THIS CHAPTER is presumptuous
- almost ridiculous. Who could possibly compress into a chapter or two all the
multitude of activities in which missionaries engage? And who could describe the
activities of a missionary in Latin America and presume that the same ones would
be carried on in New Guinea?

Yet it seems wise to attempt some sort of description of a missionary’s
ministry. The major reason is that people at home have conjured up such a
fictitious idea of a missionary’s life that they need a corrective. And the
young people who are volunteering for missionary service ought to have some idea
of what that service is to be.

Actually, in spite of the great variety of missionary activities, there are some
that are common to all lands and to most missionaries. There are also some
principles that are valid everywhere, though the way we apply them will differ
in different circumstances. And we are not going to try to give a complete
picture. We are going to concentrate on just a few features, trusting that this
rough sketch will be reasonably accurate and suggestive of the many details that
we shall have to omit.

Judging from the questions they ask, most people seem to think of the missionary
as a sort of combination itinerant evangelist and handyman. They usually think
he has a rather hard life, though some would insist that the picture has been
overdrawn and that missionaries really lead a sort of life of Riley among the
poverty-stricken natives. They do agree that there must be something of glamour
and adventure in his life. All faraway lands and strange people are glamorous
from a distance. As for the missionary’s work, they think it consists almost
entirely of preaching sermons and getting people to join his Church. Of course
they know his work involves travels and dangers look at David Livingstone! And
the missionary may have to turn builder or medicine man on occasion. But most of
all he preaches to ignorant, uncultured natives.

Let’s see if we can give something that will help to correct this distorted
view. It is not enough to say that it is wrong. It is not enough to remind
people that the world is changing and that we are not living in the days of
Livingstone. We need to paint a truer picture of what a missionary is and does.
THE NEW MISSIONARY The first task of the new missionary is to go to school. It
might seem that after all his years of preparation in the homeland he would now
be ready to begin his ministry. But it is not so. In most cases he still has to
learn the language of the people to whom he is going to minister. And it is no
small task. In fact, because it is such a task, there are always some who try to
short-cut language study.

More than ever since World War II there have been many who have tried to carry
on a ministry through interpreters. From some places, as Japan, they have sent
home marvelous reports of the success of their efforts. When some have
questioned whether the results were not more apparent than real, they have
become indignant. One young student, a member of a youth team, vehemently
insisted that they had wonderful results - he had seen them himself! How could
he know what was going on in the minds of the people, when he couldn’t
understand a word they said?

Interpretation has its values. It is useful when the people are so interested in
the speaker himself that they are anxious to get any sort of message from him.
It isn’t the message so much as the speaker who interests them. It is also
useful when the speaker has a message whose importance they recognize and which
they can’t get in any other way. They know they won’t get it perfectly, but at
least they will get some of the main ideas.

Speaking by interpretation is always a poor substitute for speaking in the
language of the people.

I remember with amusement the introduction a Central American pastor gave me to
his congregation, a congregation that had had to listen to a number of
interpreted messages during the preceding months. In concluding his introduction
he remarked, “You will be able to understand him. He speaks our language!” To
realize the ineffectiveness of the interpreted message, just put yourself in the
place of the other person. Suppose a Buddhist missionary came to your community
to try to win converts for his faith, but he could not speak English. Since he
has come from an oriental country, you might be curious to see and hear him for
a time or two. You would have to sit twice as long as usual to get his message,
since he first says a few things in his own tongue and then the interpreter
tries to tell what he means in English.

If the interpreter is too fluent in his interpretation, you wonder just how much
of his own ideas he has put in. Or if the interpreter is a convinced Buddhist,
and so can interpret with fluency, you wonder why he doesn’t do the preaching
himself. Except, of course, that a foreigner attracts the curious. And if the
interpreter is obviously very careful to interpret accurately, and so rather
awkwardly, what happens to the oratory, the fine reasoning, the warm passion of
the speaker?

These are things that can’t be interpreted on the spur of the moment. And of
course if interpretation is not very effective in evangelizing, it is much less
so in teaching, in building up and guiding a newly founded Church, etc. Yet
these things are most important in sound missionary work. There is really no
substitute for the accurate learning of the native language by the missionary.
Shortcuts are really blind alleys.

There are various ways in which new missionaries learn the language. The best
way is usually the language school. Sometimes a large mission, like the China
Inland Mission, conducts its own language school. At other times, as in India,
the language school is a sort of joint enterprise, and missionaries from all
missions attend. The language school has several advantages. It usually has a
carefully planned course, experienced teachers who give full time to the job,
and no other obligations to distract the new missionary from his main job of
learning the language. For French, Belgian and Portuguese territories in Africa,
the missionaries have to learn at least two languages. They must know the
language of the government as well as that of the tribe in which they work. This
usually means language study in Europe for perhaps a year before going on to
Africa. In many other cases missionaries are taught on their stations by the
senior missionaries or by nationals hired to do the teaching. Unless the
national is adept in both languages it often works out best to have a missionary
teach the grammar, while the national teaches pronunciation, conversation and
language. Of course there are some languages that have not yet been reduced to
writing and for which there are no grammars written. Here the missionary has
real need for the special linguistic training available in the homeland. Also he
must expect that it will take him much longer to learn the language than others
who have the advantage of grammars, dictionaries, teachers, etc. The length of
time for language study varies. Some languages are more difficult for Americans
than others. In the Spanish language school at San Jose, Costa Rica, the normal
period is one year of three fifteen-week terms. The students spend at least four
hours a day in the classroom. At the close of the three terms, if the student
has done satisfactorily, he is considered ready to enter the work. He is still
far from having a complete mastery of the language, but he has a good working
basis. His mission may require further study and reading on the field.

Sometimes people who never had to learn another language wonder why it takes so
long. They think there must be some easier way. They point to the fact that
little children seem to “pick up” a language in a short time and wonder why
older people can’t do the same.

There are several reasons. Little children often get a better pronunciation than
their parents because their habits of pronunciation in English are not so fixed
that it is hard for them to adjust to new sounds. Then, too, they are not so
afraid of being embarrassed. They try to mimic the words and expressions they
hear, repeat them over and over to themselves, and blurt them out at every
opportunity, even when they don’t fit. What if they do make a mistake? No one
takes them seriously and it helps them to learn. But aside from this little
children are very limited in their conversation. If the missionary were willing
to confine himself to childish prattle he wouldn’t need to study so long. A
proper use of the language, however, in presenting the profound truths of the
Gospel calls for much more than this. After all, how many years do we have to
study English in our schools to become acceptable ministers of GOD’s Word? Even
though we started to speak it before we were two years old.What most Americans
fail to realize is that learning another language isn’t just learning a new set
of words to take the place of our English words. Language is a means of
expressing thought. And the thoughts of other people are not always similar to
our thoughts; neither do they use the same manner of expressing similar
thoughts. For instance, we have a common word “to lack.” But Holman Bentley
tells us that in a certain tribe in the Congo there is no one word that bears
that meaning. If you mean “to lack something you never had,” you use a different
word from the one for “to lack what you once possessed.”

Americans studying Spanish are always confused by the fact that a
Spanish-speaking person never “likes” anything; instead, the thing “is pleasing
to him.” So the new missionary is faced with the problem not only of memorizing
a completely new set of words, with an entirely different sort of pronunciation,
but of learning new patterns of thinking and new ways of expressing thought.
Through the language he begins his job of getting into the life of the people.
He must understand them, and they must understand him, or else his ministry will
be in vain.

We have dealt rather extensively with this first task of the new missionary.
This is because it is so little understood or appreciated at home, and yet is so
vital on the field. If we were to pick out one of the most glaring weaknesses in
the missionary enterprise as a whole, it would certainly be the failure of so
many missionaries to get a good command of the native thought. But the new
missionary has another important job. It is to learn to know the people. At the
same time that he is studying the language, he is learning something about the
people. But he needs to know more. Sometimes a veteran of many years will say,
“I suppose we never do get to think just the way the people do. Maybe that’s why
we’re not more effective.” But whether the missionary ever does get to think
just exactly as the people do, he tries to understand them as best he can. That
is an important part of his ministry. He must try to follow CHRIST, the master
missionary, in this, identifying himself as much as possible with the people to
whom he is sent. If he doesn’t entirely succeed, we still know that he has
probably gotten closer to the heart of the people than any other outsiders.

It is no wonder that missionaries on furlough sometimes speak of the people as
“my people” and “my tribe.” It is perhaps less often that the people speak of
the missionary as one of themselves.

Yet one Presbyterian missionary in Shantung had the experience of being adopted
as a daughter into a Chinese family. And in Japan a missionary won popular
approval by attending classes in school with Japanese children so that she might
learn their language better. The missionary doesn’t think of his learning to
know the people as a job. It isn’t a subject that he can very well study in the
classroom. Yet it does take a good deal of time and attention.

He soon finds that you can only learn to know them as you come into personal
contact with them. He must visit much with them in their homes. He must eat with
them, perhaps dipping his fingers into the same bowl of food. He must enter into
their sport, where it doesn’t conflict with Christian principles. He must also
enter into their sorrows - you can learn more about the people at a wake than at
a Church service. He must welcome them into his own home and perhaps spend long
hours talking - about nothing in particular.

It all takes time, time that impatient Americans often think could be better
spent at more productive tasks. But this is the very foundation of
productiveness. You must win the confidence of the people if you want them to
trust your message. And confidence is not something that can be won overnight,
especially by a foreigner.

JUST LIVING

Often the missionary doesn’t want to tell the folks at home about this, for fear
they won’t understand. In fact he sometimes finds it irritating to himself and
wishes he could do more about it. But in spite of his desires he has to keep on
spending a lot of time and energy with the details of just living.

What we mean is this. We scarcely realize in the homeland how convenient life
has been made for us with a multitude of aids to living. It is not only with
such ultramodern helps as electric dishwashers, garbage disposal units and air
conditioning. It is rather the many conveniences that we take for granted. Not
many of our young people today know what it means to clean and trim a kerosene
lamp.

They flip a switch and have light. When they want a drink, they go to the faucet
or the water cooler, with never a thought as to the purity of the water. They
can buy all of their food in one store, most of it in cans or jars. If they do
any baking or canning, it is through economy or preference, not need. We even
buy our bread already sliced.

These are just some of the common things. In fact, the only thing that keeps
other items from being more widely used than they are, such as vacuum cleaners,
refrigerators, etc, is a lack of money. Even in remote areas they can all be had
from the mail order house. And what of the missionary? Sometimes he can have
some of these helps, too. Where he can, so much the better, but often he can’t.
The only way to have electricity in many mission stations is to put in your own
plant. This sounds easy, but have you ever tried to keep an electric light plant
in regular operation for a long period of time, without a repairman nearer than
a day’s journey?

Even if you’re a competent mechanic yourself, it will take some of your time.
And drinking water. Boiling the water for drinking is just routine for many a
missionary family. And sometimes it has to be both filtered and boiled. That
takes time. Even the stove may be a problem. Of course gas stoves and electric
stoves are out. Kerosene and gasoline are often used, but they do need
attention, with often a clogged generator to clean or replace, or a troublesome
wick to attend to. And then the food. How often the missionaries remember with
longing the corner grocery in the homeland! Of course if there is a daily market
the missionary can go there and see what is available. Though sometimes his wife
will have to wait until he gets home to know what they will have for dinner. It
saves time to hire someone else to do the marketing but not money. And
naturally, there are not many prepared foods!In more and more mission fields the
automobile is proving its usefulness as roads are being built. But again
automobiles mean repairs. and repairs take time. But for all that, even in the
old days, when most missionaries counted themselves fortunate to have a good
horse or mule for traveling, it took a lot of time to feed and care for these
animals.

What we have tried to do here is to give some impression of the many “chores”
that occupy so much of a missionary’s time.

We have only touched the fringe, and of course we know that the situation is
different in every field. But if you ask any missionary you will find that he
has to spend a lot more time than he wants to, just on the details of living in
a foreign land.

~ end of chapter 20 ~***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 21: 21 - WHAT A MISSIONARY DOES (CONTINUED)
========================================================================

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE WHAT A MISSIONARY DOES (Continued)

LEAVING ASIDE some of the other details that fill up a missionary’s life -
letters, reports, dealing with government officials, and the like - let’s turn
for a brief view five major missionary activities: evangelism, counseling,
church establishment, teaching and literature.

EVANGELISM When we talk about evangelism, everyone thinks immediately of
preaching. And of course the missionary does preach. He preaches whenever and
wherever he can. It may be in a Church building; it may be in the open air. It
may be in a city street chapel, where people are continually coming and going;
it may be in the village council house, where they have gathered especially to
hear his message. It may be in a large convention, or in a neighborhood meeting
held in somebody’s hut.

He often preaches more than his minister in the homeland. I remember the
amusement of a mission director as he told me about an applicant to his society.
The young man apparently thought he would impress the mission with his abilities
and experience. “I think I would be able to do the work all right,” he wrote.
“I’m used to preaching. I preach at least twice every Sunday and once in the
middle of the week, besides occasional sermons at other times.” The director
laughed and said, “I told him we didn’t have a missionary on our field who
preached that little!”

Oh, it isn’t always the best of preaching in a homiletic sense. It may have to
be less formal. How can you develop a theme with a firstly, secondly, and
thirdly when you are preaching in a market where most of the people just stop
for a few minutes and then move on? It is like street comer preaching in the
homeland. And many times you can’t get by with a ten or fifteen minute
sermonette. The people are there to hear GOD’s message and it may be a long time
before they will get another chance. They want “all the counsel of God”--or at
least as much of it as they can get. Some of them came many miles on foot just
to hear that message. So keep on, preacher; give them good measure!

Late one Saturday a dusty traveler reached our home. He was a Christian from a
town where there were no other believers. He had trudged two or three days on
foot to reach our city. He stayed with us over Sunday, and early Monday morning
he started back, another two or three days’ journey. “Every once in awhile,” he
told us, “I get so hungry for Christian fellowship that I just have to come down
here for a Sunday and hear a sermon or two. Now I’m going back well fed.” The
invitation is a standard part of an evangelistic meeting in the United States.
At the close of the sermon, sometimes while the congregation sings a hymn,
people are urged to accept CHRIST and to indicate their decision by raising
their hand. In many mission fields this just doesn’t work. As a missionary to
Africa wrote, “If we did such a thing, every hand in the place would go up! But
it wouldn’t mean anything.” “If people are really converted,” say others, “they
ought to be able to stand up and say so.” And they do. On a recent visit to
Puerto la Cruz, Venezuela, my sermon was interrupted right in the middle by a
woman who stood and said, “I want to accept CHRIST as my only and sufficient
Saviour!” Then she sat down. Nobody was shocked, nobody thought it was unusual,
and after a pause the sermon went on. Of course personal evangelism is the
foundation of all evangelistic work. After the beginning, the people themselves
do most of it. But the real missionary never ceases to be a personal evangelist
and some give a great deal of time to it. Even in many of his talks with groups,
the missionary often just “gossips the Gospel.”

Some missionaries spend a good deal of time traveling. They have to if they are
to do a good job.

You see, the missionary is supposed to be a settled pastor, ministering to one
congregation. His work is broader than that.

Now travel always sounds attractive to those who like to read books of travels.
Sometimes they get just enough of a taste of it during a summer vacation to wish
they could do more. But that is in this country, where everybody travels and
traveling is made easy.

It’s not always so on the mission field. There have been many improvements in
travel in recent years. The word safari in much of Africa no longer means a long
line of porters trudging single file down a trail bearing the missionary’s
equipment, and sometimes the missionary himself.

Now the missionary may pile everything into a station wagon or truck and take
along just a helper or two when he travels. In some places, even in primitive
areas like the jungles of eastern Ecuador, he has the airplane at his call. But
that doesn’t mean that travel is easy. Or that it no longer takes much time.

Take the missionary in India, for example. Suppose he wants to go on a tour of
the villages of his district. There are airplanes in India, but they wouldn’t do
him much good for such local travel.

There are railroads in India, even if they may not be up to our American
standards. But the railroads aren’t much help in reaching many of these
villages. So the missionary takes a truck, and as far as he can makes use of the
highways.

He will have to plan his trip carefully and take a great deal more equipment
than we might imagine necessary. In the first place he’s not likely to find a
hotel or a rooming house where he can stay; so he takes atent. That means, too,
all the equipment for sleeping, washing and eating. For of course he can’t just
drop in at a restaurant, come mealtime. And even if there is a market where
foods are prepared in the open air, he finds it wiser to get his meals cooked
under his own supervision.

Then there are the implements of his work. He may have to have a portable organ
along, or some other musical instrument. There are tracts, Scriptures and other
books for those who read. Charts, flannelgraphs and other such aids help reach
both the children and the older people. It may be that he can even take along a
projector and show slides, using his truck to provide the electricity. But the
missionary to India has an easy time traveling compared to some of the
missionaries among the lowland Indians of South America. Sometimes these
missionaries have the advantage of airplane transportation to and from their
stations. That is a tremendous help. But it does involve work that we do not
always remember. An airplane must have a place to land - a large, level, cleared
space, free of trees, stumps and underbrush. It is a real job to make such a
clearing, even with plenty of cheap labor available. It is also a job to keep it
clear, for in the moist tropics vegetation seems to spring up overnight.

Then, too, the missionary must have some way of contacting the plane when he
needs it. That means short-wave radio communication. Which is all very lovely
until the set gets out of order. And of course no one can tell when or how often
that may happen.

However, the plane is not used far the ordinary tours the missionary makes. It
is useful only for the big hops. On the ground sometimes trucks can be used -
yes, even where the government has spent little or no money an road building.
One group of missionaries in Bolivia built their own road so that trucks could
get to their station. Of course it was a rough job, and in such places the truck
needs a power winch to pull itself out of mud holes. But it was usable, just as
in some other places dry stream beds are usable as roads during the dry season.
But beyond the roadhead there is still need for traveling. There is much less
travel by foot today than there once was, but the inland waterways are still an
extremely important highway system.

Whether it be by motor boat or canoe, the traveler in the interior sooner or
later has to take to the “flowing road.”

We Americans are losing the fine art of visitation. That is, the pleasant and
sometimes stimulating conversations which once were the very heart of a visit
are rapidly losing out. Now, when visitors appear, they must put up with a third
party who tends to monopolize the conversation, a party to whom nobody can
answer back - the radio. Or they face the even more formidable competition of
the TV set, which demands the attention of both eyes and ears. It likewise gives
you no chance to discuss the question - if indeed it is worth discussing.

Even pastoral visitation is becoming a rarity. Pastors are too busy with a score
of other activities that seem more important. (Or is their “busy-ness” just a
cover-up for an aversion to a task that is so spiritually demanding?) In some
cases a “Church visitor” is employed, usually a woman, who has a hard time
convincing anybody that her visit is much of a substitute for the pastor’s. But
in most cases the visiting just isn’t done.

Visitation on most mission fields, however, still holds much former position of
importance. The visitor is usually welcomed. He is welcomed even when his host
disagrees radically with his point of view. After all, how are you going to
understand the other’s point of view if you don’t talk with him? And if you want
an opening for personal evangelism, here it is.

Some years ago I made a sort of survey trip out along the Gulf of Paria in
Venezuela. In the small port of Cristobal Colon I was held up for about a week,
waiting for a way to proceed homeward. While there I spent considerable time
visiting among the people, without positive results so far as I could see.

Two or three years later, after our return from furlough, the missionary then in
charge of that district was visiting in our home. “You will be interested,” he
said, “in a report I just got from up the coast. Do you remember a woman in
Cristobal Colan who was very much interested in the Gospel when you were out
that way?” I told him I couldn’t remember any such person. But then I had done a
good deal of visiting in the town.

“Well, anyway,” he continued, “this woman says you spent a lot of time one day
explaining the Gospel to her and several others. She wasn’t quite ready to
accept it then; but she did later. And now word has come saying that she has
died trusting in the Saviour, thanks to your visit.” And still, the most that I
ever could remember was that one day a storekeeper had courteously offered me a
chair outside his little store. His wife and a number of others had gathered
around, as in a leisurely fashion we carried on our conversation. An hour? Two
hours? I really don’t know how long we talked. But that woman may have been one
of the group.

COUNSELING

Visiting is often closely associated with the work of counseling. Whether in the
homeland or on the mission field, those who need our counsel do not always seek
us out. Many a time we must go and find them.

Now counseling is a most demanding sort of work. Young people who have never
occupied places of leadership don’t understand just how demanding it can be.
They are likely to think of it simply as the giving of advice. The proverb about
the cheapness of advice probably started, because there is so much cheap advice
in circulation - cheap, not only because it is given without charge but because
it didn’t even cost the giver so much as a few minutes of serious thought.

Opinions and superficial advice are easy to express. But what if a life depended
on your judgment? What if following your advice might possibly bring anguish and
remorse? And if it meant the eternal desting of a soul?

Every missionary is called upon for counsel. Not for just the common spiritual
problems which confront the pastor or the Christian worker here in the homeland.
The variety of subjects on which the counsel of the missionary is sought is
astounding. Somehow he is expected to be an authority on almost every subject
under the sun. Yet he knows that he is not.What is he going to do? To some of
the people he has become a spiritual father. And fatherhood means care. Are the
children to be blamed if they don’t understand just what kind of subjects their
father can best counsel them about? Isn’t he supposed to know? How can they tell
the difference between a spiritual problem, a social problem, and an economic
problem? Just what is the difference?

Counseling takes a lot of time. Perhaps there is no other job the missionary has
that is more timeconsuming. Even when a man comes to you for counsel, he may
beat around the bush for a long time before he comes to the point. And even then
it may take a bit of prying to find out what really is the heart of the matter.
Ask any dean of students. And no job calls for more understanding. This is one
of the reasons why missions want young people who are mature in thinking and
acting. Maturity of experience shows itself more in counseling than conversation
anywhere else. In counseling as in medicine the first problem is to diagnose the
case. It calls for patience to lead the person to reveal just what is the
trouble patience and obvious sympathy that will inspire confidence. It takes
discernment to see just what is the issue involved, and then to restate the case
in such a way that the person himself will see it.

It takes tact and self-control to avoid saying, “This is what you’ll have to
do,” and to say instead, “This is what your decision will mean; but the decision
is up to you.”

It is in this field of counseling that the missionary can show his spiritual
leadership. It is important from the beginning and it continues to grow in
importance. There will come a time when native evangelists and pastors will do
the preaching, when native teachers will displace the missionary teacher and
even take over the work of the supervisor. But there will still be a need for
the counselor, for the one to whom they can turn in confidence to help them
solve the many problems they face. THE CHURCH

We have already said that a part of the aim of missions is to establish
churches. This should be the natural result of evangelism. In fact a working
fellowship of believers must result if the evangelism is to have any permanent
effect. So one of the missionary’s most vital tasks is to help the Church get
started and guide it in its early years. It also takes plenty of tact and
spiritual leadership. The faith missions, which have always strongly emphasized
evangelism, gave comparatively little attention to the Church until recent
years. Their emphasis on evangelism was needed. But they found that after the
first advances the work did not progress as it should. Instead of becoming every
year stronger and more vigorous, it showed signs of weakness. It continued to
depend too much on the presence of the foreign missionary. They came to realize,
at least in part, that without reducing their zeal for evangelism they needed to
place more emphasis on the building up of the Church.

Looking back now, it is easy to say that we should have known better. Didn’t
Paul lay great emphasis on the Church in all his missionary work? Wasn’t that
part of the secret of his success? But we should realize that there are still
many, both in the faith missions and in the denominational missions, who have
not yet learned that lesson. They are not convinced that the principles used in
the first century can be applied today. The circumstances are different. But on
the whole, missions are laying greater stress on the church today than before.
Especially since World War II and the closing of China we have seen the
importance of developing a strong national Church which is not dependent on the
missionaries. And to this matter the missionary has to give a great deal of
attention.

We are used to churches in the United States. Even though our churches differ
somewhat in their organization and procedures, there is a great deal of
similarity between them. Fundamentally, they are all voluntary associations in
which the members have a great deal to say about what is done. Whether the
pastor is appointed by a bishop or chosen by vote of the congregation, his
authority is limited by the will of the people. Democratic procedures are the
rule, procedures with which we become acquainted as early as our grade school
days. And there is so much similarity in the usual order of service that a
visitor might find it difficult to tell the denomination of the church he is in,
unless he already knows it. Most of us are familiar with these things from
childhood. This is not true in many mission fields. The people’s manner of life
has been entirely different.

Society is organized on a different basis from what it is in the United States.
Many haven’t the foggiest notion of what democracy is, or what democratic
procedures would be. A large part of them are used to chiefs, to dictators of
one sort or another. And they think it only natural that these things should be
carried into their church life. For example, a young Bible school graduate in a
South American country went to be the pastor of a Church. His country was one of
those which have usually been run by strong-armed dictators. He had been taught
parliamentary rules and Church government in his Bible school days. But it is
hard for a few years of formal teaching to overrule a lifetime of experience.

Within a short time he got into trouble with his Church officers and some of the
older members over, of all things, their political views. Without bothering to
follow parliamentary procedure, he promptly excommunicated all of those who
disagreed with him. “Long live the dictator!”

Fortunately he didn’t last long.

Church life is something entirely new to many people. Their religious life has
been on an entirely different basis. Religion is more a part of daily life than
it is here, but regular weekly services may be lacking. And of course
witch-doctors don’t preach sermons. Besides, religion is often a community
affair - the whole town or tribe has a single religion, with no dissenters
allowed. So it is quite a new thing to come into a church - an ekklesia, or
“called-out group.”

How does one act in a Church, and how does the Church act in society?

We can’t go into the details of this problem. But we trust we have said enough
to show that it is something to which the missionary has to give long, careful
and prayerful attention. How to lead the people to understand the Scriptural
ideal of the Church? How much of our American Church organization to introduce?
(We Americans love to organize to the limit - or even beyond it!) How much of
the native pattern of life to adapt to Church purposes? When to stay in the
background and allow them to run things - letting them make their own mistakes
instead of making them all ourselves? How to encourage the development of a
native leadership? And so on, without end.One thing is certain: the Church will
usually take on a much greater importance in the life of the people than it has
at present in our American life. We have turned over so much to the state and to
secular organizations - education, charity, relief, social affairs - that the
church does little more than minister to what we call the “strictly spiritual.”
Even in a funeral service the mortician rather than the minister is in charge of
affairs. But in mission lands the situation is different. In fact, because it is
so different many of our American missionaries find it difficult to understand
and to adjust their planning and acting. You see, in coming into the Church the
people have had to come out of non-Christian society, have had to break many of
their former connections. It is not just a matter of attending a different type
of religious service. They have to build a different life.

Sometimes they may have to find a different way of earning a living. A maker of
idols cannot continue in that craft. He may need help to get something else.
Usually their social life is changed. Sometimes the change is only in the
companions; the activity itself is good-as in some games. At other times an
activity is completely dropped - as with drinking parties, gambling and lewd
dances. Then something else must be put in its place, for man is a social being.

It is in the Church that people have found spiritual life. In the Church they
find a new and delightful fellowship. So it is only natural that they look to
the church in any other case of need.

Just before the recent war in Korea, the Yung Nak Presbyterian Church started in
Seoul. It was a refugee Church, one among many. The pastor had managed to escape
from the terror in North Korea, and in the capital he found many other North
Korean refugees. They met for worship and soon there was no auditorium large
enough for the multitude of refugee Christians. But they did other things. They
all knew what it was to abandon all their possessions and escape to a strange
part of the country where they had no home, no job, no friends but their fellow
Christians. So through the Church those who arrived first began to help later
arrivals. As they were able, they provided them with food. For some they
supplied clothing. They set up a sort of employment bureau and helped many to
get jobs. Then as each one got on his own feet he began to take a part in
helping others.

They didn’t question whether this was the Church’s job. From where else should
help come if not from their brethren in CHRIST?

~ end of chapter 21 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 22: 22 - WHAT A MISSIONARY DOES (CONCLUDED)
========================================================================

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO WHAT A MISSIONARY DOES (Concluded) LEADERSHIP TRAINING

YOU CAN’T HAVE CHURCHES without leaders. The leaders may not be given titles,
but they are leaders just the same. The question is, what type of leaders are
you going to have, and how well will they be prepared for their task? Of course
it is entirely possible for the missionary himself to take the place of
leadership. In some ways that is easiest, for you have no training problems and
no question about whether the work will continue in the way you have it planned.
But the poor missionary soon finds himself burdened down with responsibilities
without number. And in spite of all his efforts the Church doesn’t seem to
progress. If he were to have to leave the field, as has happened, the work would
fall to pieces.

Another alternative is to note those who seem to have the gift of leadership and
turn over to them at least a part of the responsibilities.

It might work. That is, it might work if the one appointed has more than the
usual amount of humility, tact, patience, perception of spiritual principles,
and a few other gifts. But the odds are against it.

Paul knew what he was talking about when he wrote against giving leadership to a
“neophyte,” a novice. He knew the danger of pride, the danger that such a man
would fall into the enemy’s trap.

It has happened time and again. More than natural ability is needed in the
leadership of the Church. The only satisfactory plan is to train leaders. But
that is not as simple as it sounds. You can’t just pick out a promising young
man, send him away to school for a few years, and have him come back all ready
to do the leading. In the first place, the missionary’s choice of leaders is not
always the best choice. Many a time the missionary has selected and sponsored
the schooling of a young man, only to find that he is not accepted as a leader
by his people. Sometimes the very fact that the missionary has chosen him is a
handicap. He is the missionary’s stooge, not a leader raised up from among the
people.

He may feel the resentment that we all express toward a teacher’s pet.

It is not always easy to find the Lord’s choice for leadership.

He may be, like David, the one considered least likely. As Samuel said, “Man
looketh on the outward appearance; but the Lord looketh on the heart.” So the
missionary has to be careful not to rush ahead and anoint the first promising
candidate. He may have to try them out for a long time first. Then he may be
able to commend some to the Church as Paul commended Timothy when he sent him to
Philippi: “I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. For
all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s. But ye know the
proof of him...”

Second, training for leadership isn’t just a matter of sending young people away
to school for a few years. In fact, there are not many schools that are good
training grounds for leadership.

Sometimes the best students are those who conform most readily to the pattern,
who faithfully and intelligently do what they are told, but lack the initiative,
the imagination, the aggressiveness that a leader must have. The leader may
sometimes be a headache to the dean. He goes off into paths that the teacher
hadn’t thought of, and raises questions that are not covered by his set
lectures. The first place for leadership training is right at home, in the home
congregation. And that means more work for the missionary. It is up to him to
encourage these young people to do things. And then to counsel them in the
doing. It is up to him to introduce them to the treasures of the Scriptures and
show how they can be used in daily living. It is up to him to put before them
the challenge of loving service for CHRIST. It is up to him to bear them on his
heart in prayer that the Lord will help them out into an effective witness for
Him.

You can’t have Christian leadership without Bible study. But Bible study must be
given to more than the leaders. The wise missionary realizes this and plans
regular Bible teaching for all the people. The Bible teaching in the Korean
churches has been a model in this regard.

What good is it to have the leaders instructed if the people are kept in
ignorance? It will not be long before the leaders too are dragged down. The
whole level of the Church must be raised. And this is a blessed task, but a big
one. But neither can you have leadership unless the leader is ahead of the
people. This means special training. It was strongly impressed on me when a
woman from the Women’s Bible Class in a certain station came to me one day. She
said, “Mr. Cook, we love our teacher. We admire her Christian life and her sweet
spirit. But can’t you do something to help her? She doesn’t know any more than
we do!”It is one of the problems of missionary life that those who are the most
willing to be of service are not always the most able. And those who are the
most able in other ways lack the devotion, the self-sacrificing zeal of the less
capable.

How can you inspire a gifted young person to give his life in the Lord’s service
when the world offers so many more material advantages? How can the missionaries
in Africa turn their talented young pupils to the ministry, when they see the
pastors living in need, and the government offers them a comfortable living? How
can you take the humble young people of one talent -but with lots of devotion-
and help them to polish that one talent and use it with such effect that they
can be called true leaders of the Church of CHRIST? How? The missionary would
like to know. In his work he needs to know. That’s part of his job.

Just a word about our Bible schools. We have them in nearly every field. They’re
doing a most important job. But they’ve got a lot of problems the folks at home
don’t know about. It sounds thrilling at home to talk about training native
preachers. Just think how much better they will be able to do the job than the
missionary! How much more the missionary’s work will count if he gives his time
to this teaching ministry! As a matter of fact these statements are largely
true. The trouble is that not every missionary is qualified for the job. And in
reality it is one of the hardest of all jobs to do well. Besides, it isn’t as
romantic as it may sound.

It isn’t a job for the newcomer. Sometimes a young missionary candidate in the
homeland tells the mission board that he has been called to teach in the Bible
school. He has never had any experience in that sort of work but he thinks it
would be interesting. The director of a Bible institute told me of one such
young man.

He reached the field, studied the language, and then was actually assigned to
the Bible institute.

He spent just about a year there. Then he went to the director and said, “I was
mistaken. I don’t think this is the work for me. I’d like to be assigned to
regular station work.” And he was.

It is not just the fact that some people are teachers and others are not. Nor is
it the fact that you really need to be familiar with the language before you can
do a good job of teaching. This job calls for experienced workers because they
are the ones who have come to know the people, know something of their
background and something of what can be expected of them. Through their work in
the field they know something of the situation that the graduates will face and
they can plan their courses accordingly. You see, a good teacher has to know a
lot more than just the subject he is to teach. And then there are problems that
we don’t usually worry much about here in the United States. For instance, many
of those who go to the Bible schools have had very little previous education.

How can you expect study from people who have never learned to study? An hour or
two of preparation for each class? Some of them have never studied an hour
consecutively in their lives. That may mean more time in class and less time for
study. And how can you teach effectively without textbooks? By the lecture
system? Our American students flounder badly enough under such a system. And
those who have difficulty writing at all are at a complete loss in a lecture
class. Yet textbooks are scarce in a large part of our fields.

They are scarce because there has been no one to prepare them in the language of
the people, or because there wouldn’t be a large enough circulation to warrant
the cost of printing them, or because there just isn’t money available for the
purpose. And if you have a Bible school without many churches, what will happen
to your graduates? Will they be willing to take several years for Bible
training, and then go back to their old homes, to take up their former jobs and
give voluntary part-time service to the Church? Are there churches enough, and
are they financially able to support all those who graduate? Will the young
people feel that since you have trained them for Christian service you are
responsible to see that they find suitable employment in Christian service?
These problems are not imaginary; they are actually facing the missionaries on
more than one field.

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

We have spoken about the lack of textbooks for our Bible training schools, a
situation that adds to the missionary’s work. This is only one phase of our need
for Christian literature in the mission fields today. Actually, the two greatest
challenges for missionary service today are in the field of leadership training
and in that of Christian literature. We are all aware of these needs, but we
haven’t met them yet. One of the major reasons is that, just as in leadership
training, the requirements for doing a good job are very high.

Literature is not a job for the newcomer, no matter how well trained he may have
been in the United States. There is much that he has to learn first. But if he
has any talent at all, he can be practicing while he is learning and getting
thoroughly equipped for this most important ministry.

First of all, of course, he has to learn the language. But he needs to know it
much more thoroughly than the missionary who will use only the spoken language.
When you are speaking you can use facial expressions and gestures to help put
across your meaning. You can watch the people, and if they don’t seem to be
getting what you are saying you can say it in another way, until their faces
brighten up with comprehension. You can even at times get your word order wrong
and still be understood by emphasizing the proper places. But not so in writing.
Every bit of the meaning including the emphasis must be carried by those black
letters on white paper.

Then he has to get to know the people. This is for several reasons. He needs to
know what should be written for them - what will prove of real value. But even
more he needs to know just how to say it. Blunt, “straight-from-the-shoulder”
writing such as we often use in English may not be acceptable to other people.
And when it comes to illustrations, a high proportion of those that we use at
home would never be understood in other places. Like the missionary who started
to use the example of a railroad engineer in his sermon, and then suddenly
realized that no one in his audience had ever seen a railroad train. The
missionary needs to know the life of the people so as to write in terms that
will be meaningful to them.

All of this means that the missionary must have experience on the field before
he is ready for a ministry of writing. But he still needs something more. Not
every experienced missionary can write. So he needs to have some talent for
writing, an urge to do so, plus some instruction, together with plenty of
practice. It doesn’t matter too much that his writing instruction may have been
in English. If he has learned to write clearly and forcefully in English he will
learn to do a good job in the other language.

Those who engage in a literary ministry need to have a real devotion to their
task. It is not very stimulating to sit down to a typewriter to put your
thoughts on paper. It is much more inspiring to speak them to a living and
responsive audience. Yet the audience of the writer is many times that of the
speaker. And the words that he writes can be read and reread until they are all
assimilated; whereas the speaker knows that his words are extremely perishable
and must be grasped at the moment they are spoken, if ever.

We have been speaking of original writing. To some the answer to our need for
Christian literature would seem to be the translation of what we already have in
English. “We have so much good material in English,” they say, “why can’t you
just translate it into the other language and be saved all that work of writing
something original?” Missionaries often get this idea, too, and one of the first
literary tasks a new missionary attempts is a bit of translation. It seems so
easy. But translation is far from easy. It is a hard job to make a smooth
translation into another language which will be reasonably true to the sense of
the original. You see, another language is not just another set of words, as we
have said before.

It is another set of ideas, some of which are like ours, some are partly like
ours, and others are quite different. The one who tries to translate word for
word is sure to make ridiculous mistakes. One missionary tried to translate into
Spanish the expression “spring of truth.” He looked in the dictionary and found
that the word resorte meant “spring,” and used it. What he didn’t know was that
resorte is a spring like an automobile spring.

What makes translation particularly hard is that it always involves
interpretation.

You can’t translate without interpreting. That is, you can’t translate without
having in your own mind a pretty clear idea of what the author was trying to
say; because you are going to have to try to convey that same idea to an
audience with a different background and through words and phrases quite
different from those the author used.

Holman Bentley, in translating the Bible into a language of the Congo, found
that there was no word for “brothers” in the general sense. There were separate
words for brothers on the father’s side, brothers on the mother’s side, or full
brothers born of both parents. In the passages which speak of the brothers of
CHRIST he was faced with a problem. They could not be full brothers, since that
would make Joseph CHRIST’s father. He had two choices. He could call them
brothers on the mother’s side, which would mean that they were later children of
Mary and Joseph. Or he could call them brothers on the father’s side, which
would make them children of Joseph by a previous marriage. Rightly or wrongly,
he chose the latter. He had to interpret to translate.

Albert Schweitzer, who knew both German and French from childhood, refused to
translate one of his books from one language to the other. He contended that the
languages were so different it couldn’t be done properly - even by the author
himself. So he rewrote the whole work in French. The literature problem is
different on every field.

Some missionaries go to fields where the language has not yet been reduced to
writing. There the missionary has to begin from scratch. First he must patiently
try to dig the spoken language out of the people, carefully recording all that
he learns. He uses some system of phonetics in transcribing the sounds of the
words he hears. After he has gathered a certain amount of information he uses
those data to try to work out an alphabet for the language -a letter for each
meaningful sound, and not more than one letterpersound. As soon as he can
understand a little, he tries to figure out the patterns of speech the people
use the grammar and syntax. Then when he can, he begins to try writing a few
little things in their language. Of course they can’t read them, but he reads
them aloud to see if they are comprehensible. All of this takes time - a
tremendous amount of time. Even with the improved methods of linguistic study it
calls for years of devoted, patient application.

Writing the language is only the beginning.

If it is to be useful the people must learn how to read it. So the missionary
embarks on a literacy campaign, teaching the people to read and write their own
language. Then they will be able to read for themselves the Word of GOD which he
is trying to translate for them.

Literacy campaigns are not just for those who don’t yet have a written language.
Illiteracy faces the missionary in many fields that not only have written
languages but a great deal of literature in those languages. The missionary
rightly feels it is disgraceful when the people have the Bible in their own
tongue but most of the Christians themselves are not able to read it. How can a
Church grow in such circumstances? But literacy is only the opening of the door.
Those who have learned to read can pass through. To what? What are they going to
read? Obviously the most important single book is the Bible. But the whole Bible
is such a task that it is seldom accomplished by a single missionary. Of the
more than a thousand tongues into which some part of the Bible has been
translated, the great majority still do not have the whole Bible.

We don’t wait for the whole Bible, to provide other reading matter. Almost from
the beginning the people will need hymns, for Christianity is a singing
religion. Very few missionaries are poets and musicians, so they have to reverse
the usual hymn-writing technique. They take an English or American hymn tune and
then set words to it. The result may not be poetry, but it usually carries a
message and is singable.

Another publication that is soon started, even among those who are just
beginning to be literate, is the periodical. It may be just a four-page leaflet,
or it may become a 16-page paper with illustrations. But it is issued at regular
intervals and is much more important in the work than a similar paper would be
here at home. But periodical publications call for a steady flow of writing, and
they usually have to be printed on the field. The task is a big one.

Tracts are far more often read on the mission fields than they are at home.

Sunday school literature is often scarce and so is greatly prized.
Correspondence courses have proved their value wherever there is any sort of
postal service, however poor. And always there is a call for Christian books:
for Bible study books, devotional books, books on Christian doctrines, the home
and family, on Christian history and biography, books for children, reference
books. No one who has seen the pitifully small library of the
non-English-speaking pastor in a foreign field can fail to be impressed by this
ever-present need for more books. The writing and printing of literature for the
people is important. But equally important is the distribution of what is
already available. The Bible colporteur is a familiar figure in the mission
field. In many, notably in Latin America, he has been the pioneer to open the
way for a more settled ministry. We can hardly overstress the importance of his
work of seed sowing.

Colportage is one of the best ways of distributing not only the Bible but other
Christian literature as well. But there are also other ways. A full-time Gospel
bookstore is usually too big a job for the ordinary missionary to attempt,
unless he is set apart for that ministry by the mission. But there are
multitudes of missionaries who on their own initiative carry small stocks of
books to sell to the people as they have opportunity. It is just one of the many
odd jobs, and one whose profits are usually more spiritual than material.

Many a missionary, too, has his own private circulating library. To those who
can’t afford to buy a book he will lend one for a short time. Of course there is
so much work in trying to keep track of the books that the library is in
constant need of replenishing. But again it is time and money well spent. Books
are meant to be read. And if good books are read there is bound to be some
result.

CONCLUSION

What does a missionary do? He may not do everything that we have mentioned here.
He most probably does a lot of other things that we haven’t mentioned. There is
no typical missionary, and there is no typical missionary work. Missionaries
have become “all things to all men, that they might by all means save some.”
What they do depends on the field and the circumstances where they are placed,
on their own abilities and resources, and on the Lord’s leading. This we can
say. There are some parts of a missionary’s work which appeal to the people at
home. These he learns to tell about in his missionary talks. But there may be
other parts which are hard to make sound appealing. They may sound just like
what they are - plain, tiring, even monotonous work. The second is just as much
a part of the missionary’s life as the first. Even more so. It probably consumes
more of his time and more of his energies. And in many cases it is what really
produces the results.

~ end of chapter 22 ~


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 23: 23 - A CHURCH MISSIONARY PROGRAM
========================================================================

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE A CHURCH MISSIONARY PROGRAM

WE HAVE ALREADY SAID something about the Church’s responsibility to missions.
Now we want to come to some practical suggestions for carrying out that
responsibility. It is the local Church that we have in view, not the
denomination. In fact, we want to think primarily of the Church of average size,
away from the major cities. These are the ones who would most appreciate help.
They are also the ones from whom a great part of the help for missions must
come. The life of any missionary program in a local Church depends largely on
the leadership.

Someone has to have the interest, the vision, the initiative and persistence to
carry the program through. Normally the pastor should be that leader. People
usually look to him for leadership, and in this matter they expect him to be
better informed than the members. Besides, he must cooperate if missions is to
be a Church concern and not just a fringe activity of a small group in the
Church.

Now this doesn’t always happen. The pastor isn’t always willing or capable of
taking the lead.

Then it is up to someone else in the congregation, though he will have a much
harder time. In any case it is important to win the support of the pastor. For
purposes of our discussion here, we are going to assume that the pastor is the
leader.

It is important that the pastor be sold on missions. That is, he needs to be
really enthusiastic on the subject. The enthusiasms of the pastor tend to spread
to the people. Not to everyone, but to many. And if the pastor is thoroughly
convinced, the program is bound to follow. We may make suggestions that are
helpful, but they are of no value apart from the hearty endorsement of the
pastor. If he is only mildly interested, you may be sure that the program - even
the most excellent program - will languish.

Three things the pastor needs to see if he is to be enthusiastic about missions.

One is a matter that we have already treated, that the Scriptures present
missions as essential in the Church, and not as just an extra.Another is that
the Church itself will get a great blessing from taking a part in the work. This
has been so amply proved by the experience of so many churches that sometimes we
fear that a few pastors are taking up missions through wrong motives. They use
them for their publicity value. A third thing, which is not always so readily
recognized by the pastor of a small Church, is that he and his Church have a
really important part to play in the work. In fact, a great many of our best
missionary candidates come from small churches. And proportionately, some of the
small churches are far more generous in their giving than the large ones. When
the pastor is really in earnest about a complete missionary program for his
Church, he will want to have before him several objectives. They may be stated
as follows: (1) To create interest and enthusiasm for missions on the part of as
many members as possible.

He may not be able to interest everybody, but he should try it. The more who are
interested, the greater the blessing. (2) To support that interest and
enthusiasm with accurate and up-to-date information.

Information is the food that interest grows on. But misinformation or
out-of-date information can soon dull the appetite. It can’t often be as
up-to-date as the daily paper, and in some countries things don’t change very
rapidly, but when you quote as present facts statements published more than
thirty years ago (as I have heard on several occasions) you are on shaky ground.
(3) To secure as much prayer support for missions as possible. The missionaries
on the field need this more than we realize. Their success depends on GOD’s
working through them rather than on their own unaided efforts. (4) To contribute
material support for missions in as large a measure as possible. This is one of
the objectives, but don’t think of it as the only one, nor even as necessarily
the chief one. (5) To provide personnel for the missionary enterprise. That is,
to provide missionaries. It is surprising how many people are willing to give
their dollars but not their sons and daughters. (6) To train prospective
missionaries as far as the local Church can do that job. Sounds strange, doesn’t
it? How can a local Church train a missionary? Well, just look back at the
indispensables in missionary preparation and see how much can be done at home
and through the home Church. (7) To assist in such other ways as its particular
circumstances may enable it, such as the promotion of joint missionary
conferences, etc. The Church’s objectives don’t have to be limited to its own
membership. Neither do its objectives have to be limited to the six mentioned
above.

Sometimes it can do more. And if it can, it should.

Now don’t think that these objectives are separate and distinct from the other
objectives of the Church.

They are closely related to them and sometimes actually blended with them. For
instance, you can’t busy yourself in the training of young people who may become
missionaries without training some who will never be missionaries but will be
better Christians.

Actually you can hardly promote the missionary objectives of the Church without
benefiting the whole work of the Church. The task abroad and the task at home
are just two different phases of the same task. The Church exists for just two
purposes: communion and evangelism. And evangelism in its full sense embraces
the whole world.Now for some practical suggestions in connection with these
missionary objectives.

I. To create interest and enthusiasm for missions 1. The pastor’s own ministry
Many a young pastor is called to a Church which has little or no interest in
missions. When he himself is vitally interested, he often asks, “How can I get
my people interested, when they can’t see it?” a. Don’t try to force it on them.

There is no surer way of turning disinterest into opposition. Missions must come
from the heart. Your first job is to find out just where the people stand. Then
beginning at that point try to lead them out step by step. If they already have
some sort of a missionary program, don’t try to throw it out. Use it as a
starting point for something better. b. Get down to the fundamentals.

Foreign missions is not the real issue. The real issue is a vitality of faith
that constrains us to witness for CHRIST. When the Church begins to feel its
obligation to witness to others, missions will soon follow. c. Use missionary
illustrations in your sermons. The story of missions is full of apt
illustrations for most of the truths you will present in your regular preaching.
You don’t have to drag them in; they just fit. If your subject is persistence,
you can find it illustrated in the life of William Carey, who claimed that as
his only talent. If you are preaching on faith, Hudson Taylor can give you an
excellent example. And it will be surprising if the people don’t want to know
more about these men after they have had a taste or two. d. When the occasion
offers, preach on missions. This is one of the advantages of expository
preaching. It would be hard to give a series of messages on any extended passage
in the New Testament without dealing with missions in normal course. You don’t
have to look for a reason to deal with it; it comes in naturally. Or if you
follow the Church calendar, Pentecost Sunday gives you an excellent occasion to
speak on Missions - or Christmas Sunday.

2. Missionary speakers Without doubt good missionary speakers can do more to
stir up missionary interest than almost anyone else. But many pastors and
leaders don’t know how to get them or how to use them effectively. a. Whom to
invite(1) Missionaries on furlough. These are usually the most popular speakers,
because they can speak of their own experiences in the work. Many churches try
to get missionaries “fresh from the field.” Sometimes this may be all right, but
many times the missionary needs to get a rest and get readjusted to home
conditions and to a free use of the English language before he does much
speaking. He will then do a better job. (a) Those recommended by your
denomination.

It is easy to get in touch with the deputational representative of your
denomination’s mission board and find out what missionaries may be available in
your area, and when. But don’t fail to ask for his recommendations. Some
missionaries do best in a small gathering. Some have a special attraction for
young people. Some, who are not gifted speakers, may be used only for a brief
testimony. (b) Those from well-known interdenominational missions.

Independent churches as well as many denominational churches enjoy the
inspiration brought by some of these missionaries. Unless you have a particular
missionary in view and know that he is making his own appointments, just write
to mission headquarters for information. Write a good deal ahead of time if
possible. And again, don’t hesitate to ask about the capabilities of those who
may be available. Not every good missionary is a good public speaker. (c) Others
whom you may know or who may be recommended to you.

Go slowly here. You are safest in inviting those who are from well-known
missions. Some very able speakers represent works that are highly questionable.
If you are not sure, investigate. And don’t invite the speaker until you are
satisfied. (One pastor wrote us asking about a mission after he had completed
arrangements for it to hold a conference in his Church.) It is easier to keep
them out than to explain to the people later. (2) Mission secretaries,
deputation representatives, etc.

There are many times when these are to be preferred to the missionary on
furlough. In fact, many of them are experienced missionaries who have been kept
at home for this special ministry. They are usually effective speakers. These
are the speakers to invite if you want a broad picture of the whole work of
their mission. The missionary on furlough speaks principally of his own station
and his personal experiences, but he doesn’t always see how they fit into the
whole program. (3) Accepted candidates Many churches pay scant attention to
accepted missionary candidates. They haven’t been on the field yet; they only
know it at second-hand; so what kind of message can they bring? The answer is
simply this: they can bring the inspiration of their example. If they are wise
enough to make much of their personal testimony of the Lord’s guidance, you will
find that they will lead some of the young people to wonder if perhaps they
might not be usable on the mission field, too. And they will move older people
to deeper devotion by their example of youthful consecration. Even where they
are not given a whole Church service, you can give them a few minutes very
profitably. b. For what services? This is largely a matter for the discretion of
the pastor or leader. However, to get the greatest profit you will want to have
a good missionary speaker at a time when the most people will be able to hear
him. Don’t use him as bait to increase attendance at an otherwise poorly
attended service. He may increase the attendance somewhat, but the blessings of
his ministry will be lost to those who didn’t get there. And they are often the
ones who need it most. And don’t overlook the possibility of having him minister
in the Sunday school and the Young People’s classes. But by all means let him
know ahead of time if he is to minister there. c. When to invite.

Invite your missionary speaker as much in advance as possible. Even when they
live in your city you will sometimes find that their schedules are filled for
several months ahead. And if they come from a distance you will want to reduce
transportation costs by inviting them when they are planning to be somewhere in
your neighborhood. That means your invitation should reach them when they are
planning their itinerary. When a missionary responds that he will be able to be
with you on a certain date, and that date is acceptable, be sure to confirm it
in writing. That way there won’t be any slip-up. d. Financial arrangements These
are sometimes hard to make, because the missionary hesitates to put a certain
price on his services as if he were a professional man. These suggestions should
help: (1) Give at least what you would give to a regular pulpit supply, if the
missionary takes a Church service. (2) If he comes from a distance, see that his
transportation is cared for. (3) If he has to stay overnight, take care at least
of his lodging. (4) Faith missionaries will not ask for remuneration and may
even request that no collection be taken. However, this doesn’t prevent your
doing what we have mentioned above. Neither does it prevent your putting an
offering plate near the door into which the people may drop an offering if they
wish. There should be no outward pressure to give. (5) In some other cases
churches like to take a freewill offering for the missionary in addition to, or
in the place of, the regular Church offering. e. If you don’t want a sermon,
tell him so. Don’t blame the missionary for not giving a missionary talk in a
Sunday morning service, if you didn’t tell him what you wanted. f. Conduct of
the service (1) Make sure the missionary’s time is not cut short by lengthy
announcements and other needless preliminaries. If you want his message give him
the full time to deliver it. (2) Lengthy introductions are unnecessary. Say just
enough to tell the people who he is and to whet their appetites to hear him.
Then sit down. The longer you talk the less time he has for his message. (3) If
you can’t be there, be sure someone capable is in charge. The speaker finds it
very awkward to have to direct the service as well as give the message in a
strange Church. g. Hospitality There are two aspects to the problem of providing
lodging and board for the missionary speaker. From his point of view it is
easier to relax if he is given a room in a hotel and gets his meals at a
restaurant. But, aside from the money involved, staying in a Christian home
gives him an opportunity for a unique ministry within the family. This personal
and familiar contact with the missionary is of great benefit to both parties.
Many a family has testified of the blessing the missionary has been in the home;
while the missionary finds that the family’s interest in his work is now on a
deeper, more personal basis. The ideal host takes care of his guest, but in such
a way that he doesn’t feel burdensome or obligated. e. Instructions to the
speaker Even the experienced missionary speaker likes to be told precisely what
you expect of him. (1) Be sure to tell him the exact time of the meeting, the
length of time for the message, and the type of service it is to be. If your
people don’t like the service to run overtime, let him know.

Some missionaries need this reminder. (2) Tell him how to reach the Church, and
if you are arranging accommodations for him, let him know it. (3) If you want
him to use pictures of any sort, find out if he will have his own equipment and
let him know what you can provide.

3. Use of audio-visual aids There was a time when the curios he brought back
were the missionary’s only visual aids in telling his story. Later he could show
photographs, and later still the old black-and-white or hand-colored glass
slides. It was left for the present generation to multiply these visual aids and
add to them some of the advantages of sound.

It is seldom that a Church is prepared to care properly for a missionary museum.
Missionaries have found to their sorrow that curios left with the home Church
tend to disappear, or else they gather dust in some neglected corner. It takes
the missionary himself to use them and make them live.

However, there are many newer aids that you can sometimes use, in the absence of
the missionary, with real effect. Most important are slides, filmstrips and
moving pictures, either with or without sound. To find out what ones are
available and on what conditions, get in touch with the mission board.

Sometimes there is a small rental fee, while at others a free-will offering is
requested.Slides and filmstrips sometimes come provided with a lecture that you
read as you show the pictures. At other times they have an accompanying record
that you can play while you show the pictures. You may have to book moving
pictures a good while in advance. They also call for an experienced operator.

These aids do require that the Church own or rent equipment if you are going to
use them when the missionary is not around. Of course churches are using such
equipment more and more commonly in all of their work. For slides and filmstrips
a 300-watt projector is usually strong enough for the average Church. A
projector that can take both slides and filmstrip is preferred. Automatic slide
changers are a great help and do protect the slides but they add to the cost of
the machine. The best screen is usually a beaded type, either portable or
permanently attached to the ceiling of the room where you show the pictures.

Motion pictures call for more expensive equipment. Of course you can use the
same screen, but you need a good 16-millimeter sound projector. If the picture
is not a sound picture you can still show it on the sound projector; but you
can’t show sound film on a silent projector. A further word about the effective
use of these aids. A common mistake in the use of pictures is to expect the
pictures to do the whole job alone. It doesn’t work. The pictures may be the
heart of the program but you need to plan the whole program carefully so that
they will have their full effect. Your opening remarks should prepare the way
for the pictures and can be as long as you think necessary for that purpose. But
your remarks after the pictures should be as brief and to the point as you can
make them, perhaps pointing the way to what action should be taken in the light
of what you have just seen. But, no preaching!

There are several other audio-visual aids that we ought also to mention briefly.

You can get flannelgraph stories from the mission fields from several missions,
and you can also buy them in Christian bookstores. They are particularly useful
for children’s meetings. You can also get recordings of missionary stories in
Christian bookstores. Then, an increasing number of missionaries are taking tape
recorders to the field and are sending home recordings. These are not yet
available on a large scale, and the quality is not of the best, but people
appreciate them a great deal when they are well acquainted with the missionary.

4. The missionary library The Church that gives serious attention to a Church
library never has reason to complain of the results. No other investment pays
such valuable dividends for so small an amount invested. If it doesn’t work out
well you will find the cause in one of these three things: either you didn’t
have a dependable librarian at all times, or your choice of books was poor, or
you weren’t willing to spend money for new books and to keep the library up. The
biggest problem is the librarian, unless the Church has a full-time secretary
who can handle this matter. It needs someone who is really interested and will
be faithful to the task, someone who will keep accurate records and be available
at regular times for the borrowing and returning of books. The biggest mistake
in the choice of books is to get those you think the people ought to read rather
than those they want to read. You may have to have a certain number of reference
works, but most of the books should be of the sort that nearly everybody is
interested in reading. When one person likes a book he is sure to recommend it
to someone else. But remember that tastes differ. Of course no library will
continue to be used if it doesn’t continue to add to its list. Some of these can
be gifts from interested friends, which are usually the older books, but you
should add new ones constantly, too. To know what books to buy, unless you read
them yourself, consult the reviews in some dependable Christian magazine.
Publicize these books, too, so that people will want to read them. If you have a
bulletin board available, you can put the jacket of the book on the board,
together with a review of it.

What missionary books should go into the library? If your library is small you
will want very few reference works and serious study books. The larger the
library, the more of these you may include. A large part of the books will
probably be in the nature of missionary stories and biography. Here is an
annotated list which we believe will be interesting and useful. It contains
books for children as well as for adults.

CHILDREN Aunt Theresa’s Missionary Stories (three booklets) - Stories told in
popular KYB Club on radio station WMBI.

Forty Missionary Stories, Margaret Eggleston - A popular collection for
children.

Jungle Doctor series (nine books), Paul White - Outstanding stories by a medical
missionary to Africa.

Year of the Tiger, John Bechtel Fiction. - A touching story of life in China for
older children.

Cannibal Country, Charles Ludwig Big Peanuts, Lucilda Newton - Stories of East
Africans by authors who have lived there.

STORIES OF MISSIONARY WORK Mountains Singing, Sanna Barlow - Experiences getting
missionary recordings of Philippine tribes.

Under a Thatched Roof in a Brazilian Jungle, Rosemary Cunningham - A missionary
family’s life in an Amazonian jungle.Nests Above the Abyss, Isobel Kuhn - Lisu
tribespeople of southwest China receive the Gospel.

Sand and Stars, Ruth Stull - South American experiences by a popular missionary
speaker. The Blood Hunters and Gongs in the Night, Mr. and Mrs. Gordon H. Smith
- Among the tribespeople of Indo-China.

Cheng’s Mother, Irene Forsythe Hanson - Delightful story of a Chinese Christian
by her adopted daughter.

Adventures with GOD, Jenny deMayer - An unusual missionary in little-known lands
of the Middle East.

Blossom of the Crag and Lin of Willow Valley, Marie Barham - Well-told tales
from China by a missionary of the C.I.M.

BIOGRAPHY The Moffats, Ethel Daniels Hubbard - Masterful brief biography of a
famous missionary couple.

Hudson Taylor’s Spiritual Secret, Dr. and Mrs. F. Howard Taylor - A blessing for
those who haven’t time for the two volume life of Hudson Taylor.

C. T. Studd, Cricketer and Pioneer, Norman P. Grubb - Ever-popular story of an
unusual missionary figure.

Rees Howells, Intercessor, Norman P. Grubb - A new biography of a somewhat
different sort.

Bible Agent in Spain, Walter McCleary - Condensed account of experiences of
George Borrow.

Personal Life of David Livingstone, D. Blaikie - Still considered the best
biography of the renowned missionary.

These Sought a Country, K. S. Latourette - Key missionary figures by the
foremost historian of missions.

William Carey, F. Deaville Walker - Recently republished account of “the father
of modern missions.”

Brief biographies by Basil Miller deal with many missionaries.

MISSIONARY PRINCIPLES AND HISTORY The Foreign Missionary, Arthur J. Brown -
Still the most interesting and comprehensive book on the subject. In Training,
Rowland Hogben - How to prepare for missionary service.Ambassadors for CHRIST,
Mildred Cable and Francesca French - What a real missionary should be and do.
The Bible Basis of Missions, Robert H. Glover - Valuable studies by a well-known
missionary doctor, teacher and leader.

World Missions, Martha Moennich - General survey based on personal visits. The
Progress of World-Wide Missions, Robert H. Glover - Still a most readable
history and survey, though not now up-to-date.

~ end of chapter 23 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 24: 24 - A CHURCH MISSIONARY PROGRAM (CONTINUED)
========================================================================

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR A CHURCH MISSIONARY PROGRAM (Continued)

5. The missionary conference One of the most popular means for stirring up
missionary interest in a Church is the missionary conference. Here in a period
of a few days the Church centers its whole attention on missions.

Such a concentrated effort is usually productive, whether in the raising of the
Church’s missionary budget or in getting young people to volunteer for
missionary service. But much of the value of the conference depends on the
understanding and care with which you make the plans and on your choice of
speakers. Where only one mission is concerned, as in many of the denominational
churches, the Church’s part in the planning is fairly simple.

Since the mission has had experience in such things, after you agree on the date
you can allow it to take charge. Of course there will have to be consultation
about the details, but the mission will recommend the over-all plan with the
selection of speakers. To help carry out the plan is the responsibility of the
Church. But where several missions are to be represented, the whole
responsibility rests on the Church. And it is such conferences that are the most
common. They are held even in many denominational churches. We shall give rather
extended treatment to this type because its problems will include also the ones
you will find in the other. a. In planning a missionary conference, the first
thing is to settle on a time for it.

There is no particular time of year that is always better than any other time.
Most churches avoid the summer months, but spring, fall and even winter months
are commonly used. The Christmas season is avoided, but Easter time is popular.
Often the Church plans to have the conference near the beginning or end of its
fiscal year, with an eye on the budget. The length of time for the conference is
a knotty problem. Local conditions have much to do with it. The choice usually
runs from three days to a week. Very few churches find it profitable to run over
a week. Sometimes the conference begins with a Sunday and runs through the
midweek prayer meeting. At other times it begins with the mid-week prayer
meeting and ends with the Sunday meetings. Another variation has been adopted
where it has been difficult to get people out on week nights. A missionary month
has been set aside, with missionary speakers at each Sunday and mid-week service
during the month. This plan does not have the concentrated impact of the other,
but it may reach more people and does sustain the emphasis over a longer period.
b. Local conditions will determine how many and what services you can best use.
The plan that works well in one place may not be at all suitable for another.
Consider the following: (1) Most people will attend the regular services. This
means that you will have your largest services at the regular Sunday meeting
times, with perhaps the second largest at the mid-week prayer meeting hour.
People are used to going to Church at these times, and even an exceptionally
good speaker may not draw them out at any other time. (2) The evening services,
except on Sunday, will be better attended than afternoon or morning meetings.
This doesn’t mean that you can’t hold profitable daytime meetings in some
places.

There are people who can and will arrange their work so as to be free to attend
such meetings, and of course they are likely to be the ones most deeply
interested. But in any case the attendance will be smaller than at night. (3)
Sunday afternoon meetings are often poorly attended in cities, where there are
many other attractions. This is something that is very unpredictable. Sometimes
Sunday afternoon meetings are very well attended and very profitable. (4) A word
of warning about meetings held at times not in the usual Church schedule. Don’t
make them long! Some people don’t mind, but many others do. They won’t come out
night after night if they think the meetings are too prolonged. Better to have
them wish they were longer than feel that they are too long. (5) Include the
Sunday School, Young People’s Society, Women’s Society and any other Church
organizations in your plans. The Women’s Society may have to move its meeting up
a week, but it is usually glad to do so. The Sunday School may want a few words
from a missionary in its opening assembly, or to have missionaries speak to the
individual classes or groups of classes. (6) Usable types of meetings (a) The
Sunday morning service usually follows the regular form, except that a
missionary is in the pulpit with a missionary message. The Sunday evening
meeting is often varied. (b) Where more than one missionary is available for a
meeting, you may give one of them part of the time to show pictures, while the
other follows with a message. Or vice versa. (c) Sometimes it is good to follow
a talk with a question period, when the audience is invited to ask the speaker
questions. This usually works best in the smaller meetings. Sometimes it is hard
to get the people started asking. Let them know ahead of time that there will be
such a period, so they can get set for it. And be prepared to get the ball
rolling by asking questions yourself.(d) Round table or panel discussions are
often very valuable if several missionaries are present. It takes a capable and
well-informed leader to handle them properly, though. In the one, the
missionaries discuss one or more problems among themselves, with the audience
listening in. The audience, however, may also be allowed to interject questions
if it wants to. In the other, the questions come from the audience and are
referred to one or another of the missionaries on the panel for answer. If the
leader or one of the others is not satisfied with an answer, he may give another
point of view or add to the answer.

Sometimes leaders “plant” questions in the audience to be asked at the proper
time. While this is not always objectionable, there are many who dislike its
artificiality. In most cases the “planted” questions are so stereotyped that it
is obvious that they didn’t originate with the person asking them. With young
people keenly interested in missions these discussion periods are very popular.
(e) You ought to plan for special services for the children, and sometimes for
the young people.

Costumes, curios, stories and songs interest the children. Pictures are good if
they are adapted to the children, though this is not usually the case. For the
young people you may want to plan the meeting in connection with a picnic or a
banquet. Or if there is a Saturday night youth rally, it can be made a
missionary rally. (f) Don’t overlook the possibility that one or more of the
missionary speakers might be used in the local school or in some civic group. It
calls for a speaker with tact and judgment, but in this way you are spreading
the blessing beyond your own Church. Also, it is good publicity for your
meetings.

~ end of chapter 24 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 25: 25 - A CHURCH MISSIONARY PROGRAM (CONTINUED)
========================================================================

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE A CHURCH MISSIONARY PROGRAM (Continued)

II. Accurate and up-to-date information Many things we mentioned for stirring up
interest serve just as well to keep up that interest. But here we want to add
several items more.

1. Bulletin board In many active missionary churches you will find a special
missionary bulletin board. It has a variety of uses. Pictures and letters from
the fields sometimes appear on it. Sometimes it carries special announcements of
missionary meetings or a copy of the Church missionary budget. It is a good
place to advertise a new missionary book. It all depends on the alertness of the
one in charge. Perhaps we don’t need to add that it loses its value if you don’t
keep it up.

If the Church has missionaries of its own, it needs to keep them before the
people. “Out of sight, out of mind” applies here. The missionary is gone for
three to seven years at a stretch. Meantime the Church membership is changing.
Perhaps a new pastor comes. And even those who do remember the missionary find
their recollections somewhat vague. Whether on the bulletin board or in some
other prominent spot, each missionary’s picture should find a permanent place.
With it should be his name and postal address.

2. Map Some people find maps very dull. But that is either because they haven’t
learned to read them or because they haven’t much interest in what the map
shows. Maps are like pictures. They try to help us visualize what an area looks
like if we could see it all at once. Primitive people often have trouble trying
to “see” a picture. Just so, those who are not used to maps have to learn to
read them and “see” what they picture. But most Americans can read a map that is
not too detailed. In fact, if they are at all interested in a place they like to
get a general idea of where it is. That’s why newspapers so often print small
outline maps with news items from abroad. It helps to locate them.Just so, the
Church should help its people to locate their missionaries or mission fields. It
doesn’t take a detailed map. The simpler the better for most people. But a
general map on which you can make the place you are interested in stand out is a
real help. Put it where they can see it.

3. Missionary letters The most up-to-date news from the mission fields comes
through missionary letters. Of course such news comes in small bits. And it
isn’t always important. Most missionaries write about their own station and work
and don’t give the broad view. They leave that to others. But it’s from these
bits of news that you can put the whole picture together.

If the Church is helping support a missionary on the field, it will usually hear
from him with fair regularity. He usually acknowledges its gifts. Here is where
churches often make a mistake. The letter sometimes gets no farther than the
pastor or the treasurer to whom it is addressed. No one else sees it, unless it
be the Women’s Missionary Society. No one thinks of answering it. Money was
sent; a letter comes in acknowledgment; and that’s that. But that shouldn’t be
all. The money was from the Church, so the Church should see the letter at least
those parts which interest it. Here’s where the missionary bulletin board comes
in handy.

Post the letters there where anyone who wants may read them. And go a step
farther. Answer the letters. There are pastors at home who have never taken the
time to write a letter to their missionary. They hear from him. In fact they
would think him very remiss if he didn’t write. But they are “just too busy” to
answer. We’re not going to scold the pastor. He probably is busy. (So is the
missionary.) But he is missing an opportunity to minister, just as if he skipped
making a needed pastoral call on one of his members. And he’s making it harder
for the missionary to write as freely as he would like. The pastor isn’t the
only one concerned. Letters come to the treasurer and others which are never
answered. Let someone be responsible for answering them. It doesn’t have to be
the same one every time, but it should be a clear-cut responsibility. A general
request in the Church bulletin for the members to write to their missionary is
too vague. Hardly anyone will write. Put the duty on a specific person. He is
more likely to do it, and he will get a blessing from it.

Speaking of the Church bulletin, if you have one, here is a good place to
publish occasional extracts from missionary letters. Most Church bulletins are
too monotonous, anyway. Here’s a way to add variety and interest. And the people
will read them. They’ll read them much more than they would if they saw them
tacked on the bulletin board. So far we have talked only about the personal
letters the missionary writes. We haven’t mentioned form letters. Whether you
think the missionaries are overdoing this form - letter business or not, it is a
fixed part of modern missions. The missionary would like to write to so many
people, and there are so many people who want to hear from him, that a form
letter seems to be the only answer. Usually they are mimeographed.

Every pastor is likely to receive a number of these form letters from different
missionaries. You don’t have to answer them unless you want to. But they do give
news that you may be able to use. In fact, some denominational missions do the
mimeographing for their missionaries. Then they can run off extra copies and
send packets of them to churches that are interested. They are much more
informal than magazine articles.

These form letters are usually sent to all who ask for them, or to anyone who
has shown a real interest in the missionary and his work. But in his home Church
he faces a problem. Should he try to send a letter to every member? It’s a lot
of work and expense for the already overburdened worker. Here the Church itself
steps in.

It says to the missionary, “Send us your letter, and we’ll see that every one of
our members gets a copy,” This is not only a help to the missionary, itties him
in more closely with the Church in the minds of the people. And this is as it
should be. Besides, it keeps the members informed.

4. Magazines For a greater amount of news in a smaller space we need - the
missionary magazine. Each mission has its own magazine. Some are monthly, some
bi-monthly, some quarterly. Some are well edited; others are merely collections
of missionary letters. Some have a stated subscription price; others are sent
out free of charge. But all deal almost entirely with the work of the mission
which publishes them.

We are sorry to say that since 1939, when the Missionary Review of the World
stopped publication, no general missionary magazine has been published in the
United States. The reason is financial - too few subscribers and no subsidies.
Most people are concerned with their own group, and in most cases their gifts
help cover the costs of its magazine. There are, however, some Christian
magazines like Moody Monthly which give a certain amount of space each month to
general missionary news and interests.

Two British publications deserve mention. The International Review of Missions
is a quarterly sponsored by the International Missionary Council. It has its
values but is too technical for the average Christian reader. World Dominion, a
bi-monthly published by World Dominion Press, is more readable and varied. But
its circulation in this country has not been large.

What should the Church do about missionary magazines? We recommend three things.

First, the library. The Church library should be receiving the regular
denominational papers. It should also have at least one Christian magazine of a
more general nature in which there will be some coverage of missions. It should
receive regularly the mission magazine of each mission in which the Church has
an interest.

Second, promote circulation. The Church itself profits when it urges its members
to get one or more of these magazines for themselves. An informed Church is an
active Church. The two go together. In some cases a special price is offered if
a number of copies are sent to one address. Of course, if there is no
subscription price the problem is just distributing the papers. The most
economical way is just to announce that they will be available at the door as
the congregation leaves a Sunday service. But the economical way is not always
the best.

Third, encourage reading. Circulation is not enough if the people don’t read
what they get. And in these days of much printing we skip a great deal in our
reading.Yet much of what we skip we might read if some friend were to recommend
it or stir up our interest in it. So those who lead in the Church’s missionary
program will do well to recommend articles of special interest. But don’t just
say they are interesting. Tell why they are important to read. Better still,
give just a taste so that people will want to know more.

III. Prayer support It scarcely seems necessary to say more about the
missionary’s need for our prayers. We know he needs prayer and counts on it. Yet
we don’t take many practical measures to provide it. That is, as a Church we
don’t.

Many are familiar with the story of the missionary who had to leave his field
unexpectedly.

Reaching his home town on a Wednesday evening, he decided to drop in on the
Church prayer meeting. Quietly he took a seat in the rear and listened.

During the whole service not a word about missions - not a prayer for the
missionaries! He knew then why the going had been so hard. This little story
highlights the need to pray for missionaries in the prayer meeting. But the need
is broader than that.

It is a need for the prayers of the whole Church - of all the members who know
how to pray. It is part of the Church’s ministry, and a part in which every
member can take a part.

How to get such prayers? It takes deliberate planning. You can’t do it by simply
urging everyone to pray, “Lord, bless the missionaries.” We pray for people when
we know they have a real need. The greater the need, the more likely we are to
pray. The problem then is to get the people to see the need. The missionaries
themselves are sometimes at fault here. They hesitate to make their needs known.
Or sometimes they state them in such general terms you don’t know just exactly
what they do need and why. I don’t mean physical needs; those are usually pretty
clear. But we are all rather shy about revealing our spiritual needs. Yet they
may be just as great. We are often afraid that they may show up our weakness, or
the weakness of our work. Of course there are many needs that are not purely
personal and don’t affect just the work of the one missionary. The religious
persecution of believers, natural calamities such as floods, or the inroads of
false cults, all call for prayer. And the missionary is usually not hesitant in
asking prayer for different members of his flock. The problem is to present the
known needs in such a way that people will pray at home as well as in Church.
The prayer meeting is the natural place, but it reaches only a small part of the
people. A pastoral announcement and prayer on Sunday morning will alert many
more. Of course the missionary society should be interested. But why not the
Sunday School, too? And you can often get more sincere, unselfish praying in a
young people’s society than anywhere else.Sometimes the Church will issue a
missionary prayer list. If it does so the requests should be clear cut and
definite. Give enough information so people will know why they are asked to
pray. And when answers come, report them. There don’t need to be many requests.
It is better to concentrate on a very few important ones. You will get more
co-operation.

~ end of chapter 25 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 26: 26 - A CHURCH MISSIONARY PROGRAM (CONTINUED)
========================================================================

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX A CHURCH MISSIONARY PROGRAM (Continued) IV. Material support
We have said that the Church should give material support in as large a measure
as possible.

Don’t ask how large a measure that is. I don’t know. An I can say is that I
never knew a Church that was doing all it could. Yet I have known some very
generous ones. The experience of those churches that have increased their giving
year by year shows that there is always room for improvement. The measure of a
Church’s giving is not the number of its members. Some of the largest churches
are the poorest givers. And we may add that some of the wealthiest churches are
put to shame in their giving by some of the poorest. The thing is not to measure
ourselves by what others are doing but to ever improve our own position. For
this reason we always do well to set an objective. Make it high enough so that
it will not be easy to reach - it ought to be a challenge. But don’t make it so
high that reaching it is out of the question and the people will get
discouraged. People are stirred to greater efforts when they have a definite,
reachable goal. And let the people know just what they are giving for. If there
is any item on your missionary budget that you don’t want the members to see, it
shouldn’t be there! There is no surer way to discourage giving than to keep the
budget secret.

Sometimes churches are puzzled to know whether they should support only
missionaries who are their own members. The answer is not as hard as some make
it seem. Of course you should support your own members first of all. That is, if
they are not out of fellowship with the Church.

They are your representatives on the mission field in a way in which others
could not be. They are a part of you. They are your responsibility. Then, if you
are able to give more, or if you have no one from your Church on the mission
field, give to others. The only question here is whether it is better to give
full support to one or part support to several. There are advantages both ways.
Let the Church decide. But if the members of the Church who go out as
missionaries are more than the Church can support, the problem is more serious.
Even one missionary is more than some churches can support. What then? The only
possible answer is this. Keep up your support of those already on your list.
Take on the support of the newer ones as fast as you are able. Don’t drop the
ones nor neglect the others. Let the new missionaries needing support be a
challenge to greater efforts in giving. But under no conditions drop the older
missionaries so as to support the new ones.

There is a practice that sometimes afflicts our independent churches. I saw it
first in the experience of one missionary couple about twenty years ago. In the
middle of their second term of service, their two supporting churches, in
different parts of the country, both announced that they were dropping their
support. They had other interests. There was nothing the missionaries could do.

Such a thing usually happens when there is a change of pastor. The new pastor is
not acquainted with the Church’s missionaries. He may have some favorite
missionary projects of his own. So he begins to push his own program and gets
the Church to drop the old one. Not long ago a new pastor was called to a large
independent Church. One of the missionaries supported by the Church was a young
woman who had grown up in it. For years the Church had been an active supporter
of the mission with which she worked. But now things changed. After a time the
young woman got notice that the Church was reducing the amount of her support.
Its gifts for missions had not decreased; in fact they were increasing. But the
Church had some other plans. This fault is not the only one the Church needs to
guard against. Another is the temptation to seek bargains in missions. Recently
a young candidate told me his home Church might not be willing to support him on
the field. “They told me,” he said, “that if I would go to another field it
wouldn’t cost so much.” Maybe not. Maybe we ought to use “good business sense”
and spend all our missionary money where we can “get the most for it.” Maybe we
ought to withdraw our missionaries from the barren Mohammedan fields and send
them where results are easier to get.

Maybe - but if we do we are turning our backs on the greatest of all
missionaries, JESUS CHRIST. Look at what His mission cost Him! We are
commercializing the consecration of our young people. They are spending their
lives. We are trying to count the value of human souls in dollars and cents.

There are no bargains in missions. You get no more than what you pay for by
sacrificial effort.

“He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly.”

What does it cost to support a missionary? It depends. Better ask the mission.
But this I can say, many missionary men are receiving less than a street car
conductor, and many women are paid less than a stenographer fresh out of high
school. Why? Because the Church doesn’t give more.

“But it doesn’t cost so much to live in other countries,” some will object. That
belief, however, would be wrong. In many places it costs more, if you try to
keep up the same standard of living. What happens is that the missionary learns
to do without many of the things we enjoy at home. It just makes it easier that
the people around him don’t have them either.The temptation to find bargains in
missions makes some take up the idea of supporting native workers. The native
can evangelize his own people better than the missionary. The missionary himself
admits it. And in some cases he can be supported for a fraction of the cost of a
missionary. So why not spend our money supporting native workers? The
missionaries themselves started this idea. Now they have to face it. Some are
still spreading it, but more and more they are turning away from it. Over and
over they have found that it doesn’t work out in practice. The first part of the
argument is sound. The native can evangelize his own people better than the
missionary in many cases. Often he can be supported for less than the cost of a
missionary. But the conclusion doesn’t follow. We still have to have the
missionaries.

Let’s put it this way. A certain factory hires 200 workmen to manufacture its
product. Besides these 200 there are a number of supervisors, a large office
force and several top officials. One day an agitator gets hold of some of the
workmen. “Why should those officials get so much more money than you do?” he
says. “You’re the ones who do the work! What’s the use of all those white-collar
workers? It’s you workmen who produce!”

It sounds right to the workers. But get rid of those others and what do you
have? Only one word can describe it - chaos. Supplies dwindle; finished products
pile up in the warehouse with no one to buy them; faulty pieces reach the
consumer and break down in use; bills pile up; credit is gone; the factory has
to close its doors. The missionaries will be needed until they have nationals
trained to take over the whole of the work, not just the preaching. We have said
that native workers can evangelize their own people better than missionaries.
This is not because they are better workers. It is largely because a foreigner
always works under a handicap. People always listen more readily to one of
themselves, one whose previous life they may have known and whose way of
speaking has a familiar sound. But native workers have to be converted first.
Then they have to develop in Christian experience. And if they are to give full
time to Christian work they must be trained. All of this means work for the
missionary. But it isn’t the end. The workers must be directed and supervised in
their work. They must be counseled, occasionally rebuked, and sometimes
discharged. Or would you be willing to hire a worker, sight unseen, and support
him regularly in the vague hope that he will do good work without supervision?
Some churches are actually doing it! And they have come to regret it.

Still, this is not what is turning the missionaries away from the hiring of
native workers. It is something even more fundamental. While native workers can
do a good job of evangelism, this doesn’t mean native workers hired with foreign
funds. Especially not today. We Americans are constantly being accused of trying
to buy people with our money. So the native worker we hire is at once under
suspicion. He is the American’s hired man. But let’s go a little deeper. The
hiring of native workers with American funds has seemed a good way of
multiplying our ministry. We have usually thought of it as temporary. Through
these workers a Church would soon be built up, and then the mission could
withdraw its support and the Church would take over. It was all very logical.
But it didn’t work. Two or three generations later we would still find the
workers supported by American funds. And not too many workers at that. The
Church also seemed very weak.

Missionaries have been learning that the so-called indigenous principles are the
only sound principles on which to build a lasting work. The word indigenous
simply means native. In its simplest form it means that the Church is to be
native from the beginning. The natives are expected to spread the Gospel and win
members for the Church; they are to pay all the expenses of the Church; and they
are to run the Church. The terms most often used are: self-propagation,
self-support, and self-government.

We’ll not go into the details of these principles. But we want to call attention
to the fact that the natives are to win their fellows, which we said is good.
But they are also to pay the expenses. That means no money from American
churches for their support.

There is only one reason why the missionaries have opposed using American money
to pay native workers. In the long run it hinders the Church. There is no
question about it. It has been proved over and over. One large mission adopted
the policy some years ago of refusing to accept gifts for designated native
workers. They would accept undesignated gifts to be used only at the mission’s
discretion. They were trying to shift the responsibility to the Church itself.

After a few years the mission was able to report that the Church was growing
faster than ever before in the mission’s history. Besides - and this seemed to
surprise them - the number of natives engaged in the work was many times what it
was before. In other words, they got more workers when they stopped putting them
on the American payroll. It didn’t happen immediately.

It took time. But the end result was excellent.

What place does the missionary have in such a program?

Just the place that Paul had in New Testament days. He introduces the Gospel and
welcomes the first converts; he helps the Church get started and begins their
instruction in the Word; he counsels and admonishes them and is constant in
prayer for them; he shows them how, but theirs is the responsibility for
carrying on the work of the Church. And he trusts there will come a day when he,
like Paul, can say, “I have no more room in these parts” (see Romans 15:23). As
some have said, “The missionary’s job is to work himself out of a job.” When we
said the Church’s objective is “to provide material support” for missions, we
didn’t mean just money. Money is the most widely useful. But sometimes you can
do a great deal in other ways. Of course some will think immediately of the
“missionary barrel.” The barrel isn’t used as much as it used to be. In other
days churches gathered all sorts of items, useful and otherwise, and sent them
off to missionaries in faraway places. Some things were for the missionary and
his family, others to be distributed among the people. The arrival of the barrel
was always an exciting event. No one could ever foretell what might be in it.
But in most fields such shipments are no longer welcomed. High tariff barriers
have been raised by so many countries that the missionary may have to pay in
duty several times what the shipment is worth.So if you are thinking of sending
your missionary a package - big or little - think again. Don’t send it until you
have checked with him. Then follow his instructions. You can’t send him a
surprise package this way, but better no surprise than a tariff that will cost
him dearly. There is no way of prepaying duty charges. But when the missionary
is at home you can readily give him things that will be useful on the field. He
will be glad to tell you what he can use. Only remember this, if you are buying
new items at retail, you might do better to give the missionary the money and
let him buy them. You see, he often is in touch with Christian dealers who will
supply the goods at wholesale. Of course you will not give him used articles
unless they are in tip-top condition. The same thing applies to new missionaries
whom you are helping with their outfit. The one difference is that the new
missionary doesn’t know exactly what he will need. He has to depend on an outfit
list supplied by the mission.

Whether giving money or goods, there is one error to avoid. Don’t give as if
dispensing charity. And make sure that the congregation does not get that
impression. Give as to a faithful worker who is worthy of his hire. He is the
Lord’s servant; give as to the Lord Himself.

~ end of chapter 26 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 27: 27 - A CHURCH MISSIONARY PROGRAM (CONTINUED)
========================================================================

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN A CHURCH MISSIONARY PROGRAM (Continued) V. Personnel BBB
NOTE: Probably the single most important chapter in this book!

Most churches are inclined to think of the missionary enterprise as something
apart from themselves. This is especially true when we talk about getting
missionary candidates.

Missionaries have to come from somewhere. They know that. But it hasn’t occurred
to them that some of their own young people might be missionary material. It
hasn’t occurred to them because nobody has suggested it. No one has challenged
their young people with the need for just what they have to offer the unselfish
devotion and service of their lives. The Church is really the natural recruiting
ground for missions. It is the one place where you will find nearly all of the
young people who are interested in Christianity. Some of them have been reared
in the Church, some were converted there, but practically all come to the Church
for Christian worship and fellowship. They may not all be truly Christian. They
may be there just because it is the proper thing to do. But at least they are
susceptible to Christian teaching and they are in the place where they would
naturally expect it to be given.

What are you doing with the young people in your Church? Do you have any
definite aims and program for them? Not just for missions. That will come if
your spiritual program is a vital one. But are you paying serious attention to
your young people? Do you have some goals that you are earnestly trying to help
them reach? For we can’t have missionaries until we have consecrated young
Christians. Yes, and instructed Christians, too. The entertainment of our young
people is not the Church’s task, though some act as if they thought so. Merely
to keep them in some sort of association with the Church is not enough. A vital
program means spiritual guidance. It means bringing them into a living
relationship with the Lord and with His Word. It means trying to get them to
accept His Lordship in deciding the course of their lives, whatever their line
of work. And that is not easy. Neither are all ministers willing or capable of
doing it.

What can the churches do about providing personnel for missions? For one thing,
they can repeatedly challenge young Christians to such a service for their Lord.
But before that step can mean much, they must lay a foundation.

Young people should be finding their Saviour in the Church. Then, step by step,
they should be going on into a deeper knowledge and experience of Him. And
periodically they should be faced there with the need to dedicate their lives to
Him. The regularly recurring “consecration meeting” of the Christian Endeavor
movement had a sound idea behind it. Then challenge them to offer their lives
for service abroad. Of course confronting young people with such a challenge is
also a part of our first objective, that of stimulating missionary interest in
the Church. But here you have a special group in mind. When you issue the
challenge for missions, you are aiming at the young people. Few older ones could
go. And you will often find the young people more responsive than you think.
Young people are idealists. This in spite of the carping criticism of “the
younger generation” by disillusioned middle-agers. They are more ready to give
their lives for an ideal than are their elders.

Challenge them first of all to a full dedication to CHRIST. They are Christians.
Remind them that they are the ones whom “he hath purchased with his own blood.”
Tell them that “he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live
unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.”

Such full dedication doesn’t necessarily mean “full-time Christian service.” But
it may. It may even mean foreign missionary service. But we don’t stress it for
that reason.

- We stress it because no Christian can be fully effective without it.

- We stress it because we don’t want missionary candidates who are not first of
all dedicated whole-heartedly to CHRIST.

- They must be first dedicated to CHRIST and then to missions, not the other way
around.

Then challenge them to look on the world’s need and on their own possibilities.
The two go together. To know of a need that you can’t help to meet is
frustrating. To have a gift, an ability or training for which there is no need
is just as frustrating. They won’t analyze the world’s need perfectly. Who can?
And they may put too high or too low a value on their own ability to fill the
need. But even such a dim vision will give to life the purpose that it needs. We
all need to be persuaded that what we are doing really matters. And finally,
challenge them to offer their lives for the Lord to use and to get prepared for
whatever He has for them.

Note that we don’t say “to offer their lives for foreign missions.”

There is a reason. We do want some of them for foreign missions. But it is much
more important that they be ready for anything the Lord has for them. Some
people are willing to volunteer if they can choose the type and place of
service. But what the Lord wants are those who will put themselves in His hands
and say, “Use me where You need me most.” It may be in foreign missions. But
don’t be surprised if it is in a line you never thought of. There is no reason
why a Christian businessman should not be as sincerely dedicated to the Lord as
any minister or missionary. And note that we say to challenge them to get
prepared. This is often a weak spot. We challenge young people to dedicate their
lives to missionary service; but we don’t tell them at the same time that it
takes dedication to get thoroughly prepared for the job. As a result they are so
impatient to “get going” that they slight their preparation or look for
shortcuts. Why don’t we tell them that they will have to spend time and work
getting ready for this great ministry? Are we afraid they will get discouraged?
They won’t if they are the right kind.

Instead, it is likely to increase their respect for the work. But in your
recruiting for missionary service do avoid some of the serious mistakes that are
so common today.

Let me list five of them.

First is a superficial emotionalism that quickly fades away.

We are not discounting emotion. The emotions must be touched. We wouldn’t give
much for a missionary candidate who didn’t feel keenly his call to witness for
CHRIST. Again we say, we would like to have those who feel intensely, as Paul
did, “Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!” But the appeal that reaches
the heart springs and has an enduring effect is not the same as the one that
merely stirs up our feelings for the night. Decisions made in the warm glow of
an exciting meeting are often regretted in the gray dawn of reality. So don’t
whip up an artificial enthusiasm but try to touch the depths of the soul.

Second, avoid the glamorizing of missionary life and work.

Any missionary can tell you how quickly the glamour vanishes when you reach the
field. To some it comes as a rude shock, for they weren’t prepared for the stark
reality. Of course you can’t help it that so many think all strange lands and
people are glamorous. Their very distance from us makes them look romantic. But
you can avoid heightening that impression.

Put the emphasis where it belongs, on the great motives and purpose of missions,
not on the bizarre, the strange and unusual features of missionary life.

Remember that even horror can have a romantic attraction. When you tell a
missionary story, be careful not to overcolor it. A third mistake is that of
appealing to a sense of pity for the people because of their great physical
needs.

Such an appeal does have a place. But its place is not that of recruiting young
people for the spiritual ministry of missions.

Even the nationals of other countries have often protested against this sort of
appeal. They remind us that we have paupers and slums in our own country, as
well as depraved criminals.

They resent an attitude of condescending pity.

We don’t want our missionaries to go to the field with such an attitude as their
main motive. In the fourth place, there is an unwise tendency to present foreign
missionary work as the highest form of heroic consecration.

Really it isn’t. Many a missionary will assure you that it isn’t.

Missionaries are often embarrassed by the sort of hero-worship that is heaped
upon them unsought and undesired. Not that there isn’t a great deal of heroism
exhibited in many mission fields. And for some young people it takes a heroic
decision to get them out. But for many the decision to tackle an unromantic job
at home is even harder. In fact, for some the foreign field looks like a way to
escape frustration at home. The highest form of consecration is to deny oneself
and to take up one’s Cross and follow CHRIST regardless of where He may lead. A
final mistake in recruiting is one that is hardly worthy to be mentioned and yet
is quite commonly made. It is the appeal to young people to help enlarge the
ministry of their own Church, their own denomination, their own mission. This is
nothing but selfishness masquerading as Christian missions. We are not of those
who oppose working with boards of like Christian faith, barring, of course,
doctrinal error. As long as Christianity is a really vital force it is likely to
break out in new ways at any time. Regimentation means stagnation. But when any
Christian group thinks chiefly of its own perpetuation or enlargement it is
getting away from its Christian basis. The shameful competition and overlapping
of work in some mission fields is not caused primarily by the fact that we have
various denominations.

It is caused rather by those who confuse the glory of CHRIST with the
glorification of their own organization. Don’t be guilty of inspiring young
people to go out with such a vainglorious attitude. Challenge them to preach not
themselves but CHRIST.

Try to see that their chief concern is for the honor of CHRIST and that the
world may experience the life of CHRIST. But a further word.

Don’t just challenge. Tell what kinds of missionaries we need. Of course that
means that you will need to know, yourself. It means you will have to be
interested enough to keep in touch with the mission. Or at times you may prefer
to have a missionary or a mission secretary deal with the matter. But do make it
definite. Don’t encourage those who are clearly inferior. Don’t say, “You can
probably be used somewhere.” Could you use them at home? Don’t encourage
divorced persons, or those who are overage or “strange,” or those who are not
willing to work hard to prepare. Don’t make candidate secretaries do all the
weeding out. You know your young people better than they do. And don’t hesitate
to encourage some of them individually. They may need just a little
encouragement. But don’t push. Let the Lord do the calling.

Provide opportunities for your young people to meet missionaries and missionary
candidates personally. Just an invitation to speak to the missionary after the
service is not enough. Only a few of the more venturesome will do it. Arrange
for a discussion group or something similar. Or maybe a small gathering in a
home. These personal contacts are valuable. They bring home to your young
people, as nothing else could, that missionaries are just ordinary people with
an extraordinary devotion to their Saviour.

Again we say, the local Church is the natural recruiting ground for missions.
Does your Church have the vision? Is it meeting the need?

~ end of chapter 27 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 28: 28 - A CHURCH MISSIONARY PROGRAM (CONCLUDED)
========================================================================

CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT A CHURCH MISSIONARY PROGRAM (Concluded)

VI. Training Not all the training of missionary candidates is carried on by
Bible institutes, seminaries, and other missionary training schools. The local
Church does its part. And it is not an insignificant part. As we have mentioned
before, the most important part of the preparation of missionaries is done
outside of the classroom. In fact, all four of the indispensables of missionary
preparation can in some measure be provided in the Church. But the Church
doesn’t need to carry on a missionary training program separate from the rest of
its program of training young people. It should be just a part of that same
program. The Church can’t give the specialized instruction needed for foreign
service. What it can and should do is train its young people to be good
witnesses for CHRIST wherever they are. This is foundational. The special
training they need to serve in other lands can be added elsewhere.

Let us take it for granted that the Church is sincerely and seriously interested
in the development of its young people. It not only wants to see them continue
faithful to the Church; it desires to help them grow in spirituality and
leadership. It hopes to see them make some useful contribution to the work of
the Church and to the whole cause of CHRIST. So it is willing to give special
attention to the training of its youth. What, then, can it do that will be
important in missionary training?

Let me mention five things.

First comes the matter of personal consecration and the spiritual life. Every
pastor recognizes that this is part of his usual responsibility.

Among his Christian young people are some who were reared in the Church. Others
have come into it out of non-Christian surroundings through conversion. It makes
little difference. In every case they need to be brought to the place of
personal dedication. Sometimes those who were brought up in Christian
surroundings are the hardest to get to see their need of such dedication. But
they cannot know the fullness of the Christian life until they make it.A single
act of dedication is not enough. No more so than the single act of joining the
Church. It should set the course for our life; but, oh, how often we veer away
to one side or the other and end up completely off course! We need training in
the spiritual life. That is, we not only need to know the principles, but we
need to have instruction in applying them to daily living, we need to have
practice in doing it. We need to learn how to put first in our lives “the
kingdom of GOD and his righteousness.”

Second is the matter of systematic Bible study. This, too, should be a part of
the Church’s usual ministry. Sometimes it is well done. Sometimes any young
person who wants to can get in his home Church a good broad foundation in the
teachings of Scripture. But often this is not so.

Especially when most of the Bible teaching is left to the Sunday school and its
often haphazard teaching under inexperienced teachers. This is one of the great
values of expository preaching. It is Bible teaching from the pulpit. And since
so many never attend any but the preaching services of the Church, it is the
kind of teaching that helps to raise the whole level of Bible instruction in the
Church. That is, if it is well done. But then, if a young man is only going to
attend one service a week - it is doubtful whether he will make much of a dent
on the mission field. But when listening to expository sermons, or even to Bible
lectures given at the Church’s midweek service, the young people are passive.
They listen and drink in - if they want to. But there is no chance for them to
clarify their understanding by asking questions. There is no chance for them to
express what they are learning, so as to fix it more firmly in their minds.

It is this purpose that the young people’s society should fill. It gives the
youth of the Church a chance to express what they are learning. And there is no
surer way for them to fix a teaching in their own minds than to try to teach it
to others. It encourages them to search the Scriptures for themselves and
discuss its teachings among those of similar age and experience. With good
counsel the young people’s society can be an invaluable training school. Without
such counsel it may become just an insipid social club. Or it may turn into
another preaching service where young people are expected just to sit and
listen. But besides these things there is still a need for more systematic and
consecutive study of the Bible. The Bible class is needed. It may be a part of
the Sunday school. It may be held on some weekday evening. Whatever the
arrangement, it is a serious and purposeful attempt to get the fullness of
Scripture teaching instead of snatches here and there. Often such a class will
make use of a correspondence course such as those that are offered by Moody
Bible Institute.

Sometimes examinations are given; sometimes not. Only a minority of the Church
attend, but it is from this interested minority that the missionary candidates
as well as Church leaders will probably come. And when they get to the training
schools, the value of this Bible teaching in the home Church is soon apparent.

Personal witnessing is a third field in which the local Church can provide
training. Perhaps it is more a matter of inspiration and encouragement than it
is of instruction. Classes in personal evangelism have their place, but they are
not much good without practice. Nothing can take the place of actually talking
with men and women about the faith we have in CHRIST. Many do it spontaneously
in the enthusiasm of their new - found faith. But today, when the great majority
of our Church members have been reared in the faith, this is not the rule. Most
young people need to be encouraged to do it and they need to be shown how. The
subject of personal evangelism is too big for us to deal with it here. But we
can make one or two suggestions. Young people will usually do better at first if
at least two work together. Even if one tends to take the lead and do most of
the talking, the other is still learning from their joint experience. Also, to
keep up interest in this personal witnessing, there ought to be a chance to tell
others about it - to share experiences. Testimony meetings are unheard of in
most churches today, and the churches have lost more than they realize by
dropping them. The pleasure we take in any experience is greatly increased by
telling someone else about it. And if this is true in our personal religious
experience, it is doubly so in the matter of witnessing to others. In the fourth
place there are opportunities for leadership and service that the local Church
can provide. This is extremely important in missionary preparation. It is
amazing to see how many young people enter missionary training schools without
any previous experience in Christian work. In the case of recent converts to
Christianity this is of course understandable. There hasn’t been time for them
to get such experience. Perhaps we can excuse it, too, on the part of those
whose Christianity was largely formal and superficial until shortly before they
entered. But there are many others who might have been willing to work but they
needed opportunities and guidance - especially guidance.

It is true that a missionary has to learn to take the initiative in such things.
Young people who always have to be told what to do don’t make good missionaries.
But on the other hand, the Church leaders don’t always welcome initiative on the
part of the young people. And they don’t always see the leadership possibilities
in many of them. As we have said before, leadership is not merely a matter of
natural talent. And even where that talent exists, it needs encouragement and
guidance. The wise Church deliberately gives responsibility to its young people.
And it is not just the responsibility for running their own young people’s
society. Every bit of Christian service is a part of training - especially where
they have to lead others. And in every Church there are many services in which
the young people could have a part. Of course they often teach Sunday school
classes - though they usually need more instruction and counsel for the job than
they get.

High school boys can develop into very acceptable ushers. Games at the Sunday
school picnic, and even other parts of the program, can often be turned over to
the young people. Older young people can sponsor younger groups, sometimes with
better understanding and greater success than adults would have. Some churches
have found it worth while to turn over an occasional evening service to the
young people, letting them plan and direct it all except the sermon.

Others have encouraged the forming of “Gospel teams” and other such groups who
carry their witness to neglected places, to jails, missions and even other
churches. And we could extend the list indefinitely. The important thing is
that, while the Church benefits from their services, these young people are
getting invaluable training for missionary service.One last suggestion has to do
with schools. When a young volunteer offers his life for missionary service, he
usually knows that he will need to get some special training. But being young
and enthusiastic, he doesn’t want to spend any longer getting that training than
he has to.

It is at this point that his pastor can render a real missionary service. If the
pastor has the young person’s confidence he can direct him to those schools and
courses of training that will best meet his need.

- He can see to it that he doesn’t try to short-cut his preparation.

- He can tell him where to get the special advice that the pastor himself may
not be able to give.

- He can encourage him to go ahead in spite of difficulties.

One major difficulty that faces many candidates is the financing of their
training. Even in schools where no tuition is charged, the student still has
many other expenses. Should the Church help him? Especially since he is going to
be a missionary? Some do. Some churches include in their budget a certain amount
to be used in helping their young people get training for Christian service.
They believe it is a sound investment of the Lord’s money. And that can be very
true. But there are problems.

There are always some who begin their training and never complete it. There are
others who finish their training but never enter the service they intended. How
is the Church going to feel about these young people? Will it condemn them for
accepting its help and then not carrying through? Will it make them feel like
debtors?

Again, there are some whose choice of a mission board is not what the home
Church would prefer. But because the Church has given them some financial help
in their training, they feel obligated to accept the choice of the Church or
pastor. Or if they don’t, they are afraid they will offend the folks back home.
Should young people be tied down with financial strings to the choices others
make for them?

Such problems can be solved. But we need to face them in order to solve them.
Let’s face them frankly. Let’s urge our young people to follow the Lord’s
guidance. And then let’s show our confidence in Him and them by offering our
help with no strings attached. Let them be responsible to Him, not to us, even
as we also are responsible to Him. Let His Gospel and the glory of His name be
our chief concern, and not our own interests. Only so can we fulfill our
missionary obligation.

END OF BOOK


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/cook-harold-r-an-introduction-to-the-study-of-christian-missions/
========================================================================