;)
Theology Drives Missiology
Posted by Strider in Baptist Life, Church & Missions
I know this post would be more popular if I wrote on the Ergun Caner scandal. It may be much more popular if I wrote on the latest Fox News piece on how President Obama is driving our nation into Socialism. Those subjects might get lots of hits and generate lots of discussion but those things are not what interest me. What I like to ponder and meditate on are the ways in which God is working among us. That may sound pious but actually it is very exciting. God is indeed doing new things in our day and today I want to share how we can be a part of that.
There has been much discussion about the direction of the IMB. Choosing a new president now will be key in setting that direction. Below I will outline the direction that my theology is driving me personally in the mission that all Southern Baptists are enabling me to be on. I know, I just lost half of you who are clicking out to go read something more controversial. Hang on! I will be as controversial as I can in my presentation.
First, I believe that Matthew 24:14 is a promise and a command. “And this Gospel of the Kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” This verse clearly says that the Gospel will be proclaimed to all nations- that’s people groups and not just arbitrary political borders. It will happen. It is what He is about, the mission that He is on and the one he invites us to be a part of in the Great Commission. Some have said that it is arrogant for us to think that we can control when the end will come. That this verse does not mean that we must proclaim the Gospel to all nations before Jesus comes again. Some have said that it is arrogant for us to think that we can manipulate God by proclaiming the Gospel to all nations and expecting that that will bring about the end. I fail to see how expecting God to fulfill HIS OWN promise is being manipulative. I think this verse is extremely clear. He will get the Gospel to all nations and if we will be His people on His mission then that is what we should be about. I do not believe that this is one of many tasks and goals that He has for us. I really believe that it is THE task that He is about, THE thing that Jesus died to accomplish, THE commission that He has given us. It is not what He is ‘waiting’ for, it is what He is doing right now. Those who truly love Him and want to be with Him will be involved with what He is doing and going where He is going- both spiritually and physically.
What does this mean practically? During World War Two our Nation fought a war on two massive fronts and did remarkable things. The entire country was focused on the war effort. Our factories were converted to supporting the war, our population was converted to supporting the war. Men learned how to fight and were sent out. Women replaced them in the factories. No aspects of society were untouched. No family was unaffected. It is time the Southern Baptist Convention woke up to the war we are fighting on many more than just two fronts and on a scale much larger than World War Two was fought. We have Churches who know nothing about Missions and have met few if any missionaries. We have pastors who believe their entire agenda is getting ten more people in the door on Sunday morning (Don’t argue with me on this, I was one!) The Gospel we proclaim must cease to be, ‘Come to my church or it will die’ and go back to Jesus died and rose again to set us free. We are free indeed. Free to make our lives count for the only thing that matters to the King and the only thing that will last in eternity: the eternal souls of men and women around the world. These are the only thing worth working for, the only investment that will pay off, and the only way we can truly bring joy to our Father’s heart. True worship is not just singing the latest moving praise chorus it is to be obedient to the King.
Because of this conviction the IMB has been targeting unreached people groups. For a long time we tried to maintain a balance between what was called the ‘harvest fields’ and the ‘unreached’. A few years ago Jerry Rankin, lo0king at the global statistics set a goal of 8000 SB Missionaries. He said if we had 8000 men and women in the field we could achieve world evangelization. I disagree but the point is irrelevant now that we know we can not even afford 5000 much less 8000. Two things must happen in my opinion. One: we need to get out of the harvest fields for their own sake. I grew up reading about missionaries in Africa who baptized hundreds of people. I remember reading the plea of one missionary years ago that we needed the next generation of missionaries to lead to faith the next generation of Africans. I was challenged at the time but now I am amazed and dismayed. Why are the missionaries baptizing so many? Why can’ t the African believers lead their own children to faith? Why do we still need missionaries to be in control? This has been a hard fight but one in which the tide is turning. For too long missionaries have walked into a new place and taken Jesus out of their pocket showed him around and said, ‘Hey, here is Jesus. If you want to know about Him I am the one who knows.’ We need an attitude that says, ‘Hey, here is Jesus.’ Then, we should take Him out of our pocket and leave Him there. The Holy Spirit works. Jesus said, ‘I will build my church.’ The reason we have been weak is that we have spent too much of our time trying to build the church (read: organization that we control) and not enough effort on making disciples who read the scriptures, hear the Holy Spirit and obey him. Every church must have a leader and his name had better be Jesus.
To be succinct: We need to be about making disciples as He has commanded us. Pastors are not to be about running corporations they are to be about teaching men and women to be followers of Jesus. Followers of Jesus should be out with Jesus on His mission. Many of you will say, ‘Yeah Strider we know this, we do this, what is your point?’ My point is that the vast majority of us know this in theory but it is most certainly not what we do. We are side tracked too often in corporate culture and administration.
Lets talk about national partners. In Acts 20:4 Luke is going through his mundane travelogue of Paul’s journey and we can miss an important point if we don’t pay attention. It says,’Sopater the Berean, son of Pyrrhus, accompanied him; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Sucundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and the Asians, Tychcus and Trophimus.’ Riveting stuff, huh? These are Paul’s traveling companions and fellow workers. Did you notice who they are? None of them are from Paul’s home church at Antioch. They are all from places that Paul had gone and ministered in. The resources needed for the harvest are found in the harvest! We do not need 8000 SB Missionaries. We need to make disciples as we have been commanded to do and the best way to do that is to put them to work with us as Paul did.
I have spent the last six years training a team of guys. We have been all over sharing our faith and have even been privileged to plant a few churches. Now that team has broken up and they each lead ministries that the Lord has given them. I am leaving right now to go down and help Sam dig a well in a village with his new team. Tonight we will share the love of Jesus with those who do not know. We will sing songs, read the Word, and pray to the Lord of the harvest. We go on mission with the one who has called us to the nations and when we have finished proclaiming truth in that village we will move on to the next one. We have crossed borders, engaged new people groups, and seen God’s Kingdom impact whole communities and transform them. He is moving and you are a part of that. Don’t work harder. Don’t sacrifice more. Be obedient to what He is calling us to.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
To be clear it is my heart in this post to be challenging, not rude. I am off to the village for the next two days. I will try and catch up with whatever discussion happens on Friday.
Great post.
How much more can be accomplished when believers of all nations take up the cause of the Kingdom. I just finished a meeting in my living room with representatives of another US missionary sending organization. Our topic of discussion was how can we best influence our national partners to send missionaries cross-culturally without it becoming a program led and supported by foreigners. It has to be theirs.
So, next week we plan to meet with a new national leader to hear his vision and see if we can be of assistance to him. If his vision needs some fine tuning and we can be of help, great. If not, that is fine too, but we are not going to take over his responsibility as a national leader of Christians. We’ll listen, encourage, support, challenge, lead and even leave as needed, but we will never be able to be obedient for him and others. Only to our own calling can we be found faithful. I pray that he and others will hear God’s voice and obediently follow too.
Entrenched interests and ethnocentrism are big drivers. I was talking to a missionary and his wife last night about their change of station. They had previously served in central Africa and were contemplating a move to a west African country. They spent a week visiting various works in the country and were both impressed and dismayed. They were impressed with the energy, commitment, and accomplishments of the group that had been there. However, they were dismayed at how little of the native culture the group they were observing had adopted.
Example: The wife, a veteran of service in Africa, asked the ladies of the group why they didn’t wear scarves when they went out. The reply was that they took the scarves to be some sort of religious or Islamist thing and that it didn’t apply to them. The wife was stunned by this. When she went out, she always wore a scarf because that’s just the way ladies dress in Africa. She was approached by the locals when she went out and was asked, “Who taught you to wear a scarf?” and she replied, “No one. Where I am from everyone wears a scarf.” Once the local ladies realized this, they complimented her on the scarf and they had a great time with her. When she reported back to the ladies of the mission group, they were surprised at the reaction and thought maybe they should start wearing scarves too.
It was the “We are Americans and we know what we are doing” attitude that really took this couple aback when they visited this particular field. The danger in being experts at whatever it is we are doing – including sharing the gospel – is that we tend to assume that our way is always the best way. We’ve stopped learning. When we seek to be in control, that means we are seeking to supplant God. I never cease to be amazed at how strident we are at “protecting” a God (and his Bible) when He Himself sent His own Son into a hostile world to be crucified on our behalf. How can we worship a triumphant suffering savior and still miss the point that He is capable of looking out for His own interests and protecting them – even from us?
Great Post!
The resources needed for the harvest are found in the harvest!
This one comment needs to be shouted from the house tops of the SBC… We must be about planting indigenous self-sufficient congregations wherever we go. Anything less will never last… and in the end will be found to have been all in vain.
Grace Always,
Strider,
Thanks for this post. You have given us a lot to think about. I wish that much more of Baptist blogging could be spent on discussing theology and missiology, and how they relate together. But, maybe that’s just the way we “M” or “former M” types are wired.
In any case, as I have told you before (or, at least, implied so), I am totally enamored with what I read regarding your ministry, and the way you go about things there in Middle Earth. I think Southern Baptists should be proud to be a part of what you (and many more like you) are doing. And, I am also proud to have you a part of the SBC Impact team. (Ron did say yesterday we should “compliment” each other. See comment stream, if this doesn’t make sense).
Now, regarding the theological/missiological ideas you throw out at us…
1. I can see how Matt. 24:14 can be a good motivation for us, as we work on finishing the Task Jesus gave us. I do, however, see some of the problems with majoring on that too much, though. I think all of the different versions of the Great Commission (not to mention the Grand Narrative of the entire Bible — see Christopher Wright, The Mission of God), give us plenty motivation, in and of themselves, for that. I think obedience, and wanting to be pleasing to our Lord, should be our main motivators.
2. I agree with the war mindset toward our fulfillment of the Great Commission. Indeed, as the Body of Christ, we must dedicate, in as strategic a way as possible, all of the resources we have–human, financial, creative, and spiritual–toward the fulfillment of the Task. This is not a time to sit around twiddling our thumbs.
However, I think we must have a relatively broad understanding of what the Great Commission encompasses. It is not just “engaging” the totally unreached people groups with an entry-level exposure to the gospel.
Now, in the overall scheme of things, engaging the totally unreached is very strategic, and should rank high in our list of priorities. But, I do not think it is the end-all, that should trump any and everything else we do.
Paul said it was his goal and modus operandi to preach the gospel where Christ had not been named, and not to build on a foundation that had already been laid. Fine and well for Paul. But, it seems to me the New Testament also legitimizes the ministries of Apollos, and Titus, and Timothy.
The Great Commission is, at its core, making disciples. And, indeed, this is to be done among ALL the nations. But, it is not just “going,” and it is not just “baptizing.” It is also “teaching” them to obey ALL the things that Jesus commanded us.
I believe the “end-vision” for us, as co-workers in the task Jesus gave us, is best summed up in Eph. 4:13-16–
“Until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”
Now, what is the best path to reach this end-vision is a matter for legitimate discussion. But, any methodology that, in the end, short-circuits this end-vision is not, I believe, a good methodology.
Thus, I believe some will be called to use their gifts in more front-line apostolic types of ministry, and others in more watering, and teaching types of ministry. But, they all form necessary parts of one and the same task: that of making disciples of all the nations.
3. I go back and forth on the “harvest field”/”unreached people groups” thing. While I find myself resonating with what you write here, I also find myself resonating with what “Baptist Theologue” Mike Morris wrote a few weeks ago on a comment on my post, and with the dissertation he wrote on this very topic (see: http://www.sbcimpact.net/2010/05/23/re-prioritizing-the-task/comment-page-1/#comment-52717).
As I think about what Scripture teaches, I think it is a “both/and” thing, not an “either/or.”
Now, for an organization such as the IMB (and for the churches in the SBC at large), I do agree there is good warrant for continually asking ourselves whether or not the balance in the way we prioritize different aspects of Task is best. But, I think we must be careful to not project our particular vision, gifting, or calling on other members of the Body of Christ.
1 Cor. 12:4–6:
“There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.”
4. Now, as far as discipling and training indigenous workers for the continuation of the task, and the resources for the harvest being found in the harvest, are concerned, I am in total agreement. I think.
That is, I think that is something we should definitely be doing. And, I think that should be a major emphasis overall in the joint way we are approaching the Task on a broad scope.
But, I don’t think there is never a time and a place for those with comparatively greater resources in one area (i.e. financial, in the case of the West) to put their part into the pot, in order to better facilitate the work of those with comparatively greater resources in another area (i.e. personnel, in the case of many 2/3 world churches and believers). I think we need to look at the Task as being given to the Body of Christ worldwide, and each of us as individuals, and as churches, organizations, and ministries, as team players, who are called to bring to the table the resources and gifts God has given us for the overall good of the team, and the task we are all working together to accomplish.
That being said, as I said in my last post, I don’t totally sign off on the thesis of K. P. Yohannan. And, I believe we do indeed need to be careful, in the way we partner together, to not create a dynamic of unhealthy dependence.
—–
Well, enough from me for now. I love these types of discussion, and could go on all day long. I hope some more missionary colleagues will weigh in, as well as some Stateside folks who have given some serious thought to questions like these.
Strider wrote, “The Gospel we proclaim must cease to be, ‘Come to my church or it will die’ and go back to Jesus died and rose again to set us free. We are free indeed. Free to make our lives count for the only thing that matters to the King and the only thing that will last in eternity: the eternal souls of men and women around the world. These are the only thing worth working for, the only investment that will pay off, and the only way we can truly bring joy to our Father’s heart. True worship is not just singing the latest moving praise chorus it is to be obedient to the King.”
This attitude that we must preserve our individual church bodies at all costs is indeed killing Southern Baptists in the Deep South. In the county where I live, we need to merge 16 churches into about 5 churches, and develop a world vision.
At the last executive board meeting of our Association, I proposed developing a Direct Mission Fellowship with a “pioneer” area in our country to work with them through whatever means possible to help them become self-sustaining. I was shocked at the response. I could have understood those who disagree philosophically or theologically. But these folks just didn’t want to do much of anything outside our geographical area.
I’ve heard more than one say that he has attended his church since birth, and that’s the only church he’ll ever attend. That is why resources are being wasted on numerous congregations of 30-50 people within 3-5 miles of other like congregations.
I will consider my ministry here a success, if I could help the people to merge with another nearby congregation. I would gladly step aside and allow another to pastor such a congregation, is such could be facilitated.
Until we stop trying to “build” local congregations, and lose ourselves in work of the Kingdom, we’ll continue to underachieve as a denomination, and we’ll continue to struggle internally directionally.
For David Rogers in particular; maybe one thoughtful to get at this is through Metaxas new bio of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
I have posted before how Robert Marsh came to view the SBC differently from Adrian Rogers.
Metaxas effort has been embraced by World Magazine and other conservative bents.
Marsh’s son Charles is something of a Bhoeffer scholar at UVA.
Eric Metaxas in the bio sets up great framework for Bonhoeffer sermon on Reformation Sunday at large Baptist Church in Berlin in late 30′s
Question for America and SBC’s character is will there be any Bonhoeffer like sermons this July 4th in SBC churches; and or was Bill Leonard’s address last week in Charlotte the closest Baptists will come this year to some challenge of equal weight that could shape it’s character for Mission and authenticity and witness.
David, thanks for the plug. I think there is a very strong biblical foundation for the receptivity principle. I dealt with the biblical basis for the principle on pages 8 through 28 of my dissertation:
http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/#viewpdf?dispub=3388877
This principle is not only relevant overseas; it is also relevant for our SBC work here in America.
Stephen,
And, your comment is relevant to the discussion of Strider’s post here, how?
David,
I was thinking almost everything you wrote in #5. So, thanks. You saved me a bunch of time and said it better than I ever could have.
The “teaching them” clause in the Great Comission doesn’t have to mean formal seminary training using Western education models. But neither does it mean moving on too quickly. The fastest way to make an UPG is to abandon a “reached” before they’ve been instructed in basic doctrine and blessed with Scripturally qualified leaders.
You’re right that the key is balance. Abandoning a group before they’ve been well-grounded (on one hand) and insisting that nationals be trained in traditional, formal, Western ways (on the other hand) are both equally wrong ideas.
In regard to adequate training and not moving on too quickly, the following are a couple of contrasting quotes from page 99 of my dissertation:
“There is a danger that the new churches will be confirmed, not in the faith, but in ignorance and nominalism. . . . People movements to Christ require special care.”
Donald A. McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. C. Peter Wagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 235.
“Church Planting Movements are rapidly multiplying movements of people. People can multiply truth or error. The secret to keeping them on track is not to slow them down long enough to indoctrinate all of their leaders before they are allowed to reproduce.”
Garrison, Church Planting Movements: How God Is Redeeming a Lost World (Midlothian, VA: Wigtake Resources, 2004), 269.
Garrison advocates using recent converts as pastors (187-188 in Church Planting Movements).
I don’t fear ignorance as much as I used to. First of all, I suffered from it a great deal, but found that it is easily cured. At the same time, efforts to mitigate ignorance in others oftentimes look like efforts to control rather than educate them. I’ve found in both Bible College and Sunday School that certain types of questions not only go unanswered but are actively discouraged. This does little to help indigenous peoples explore the faith in their culture where many of these questions are top-of-mind for folks.
Secondly, ignorance tends to cure itself in sincere believers. They will read their Bible and learn from it whether we want them to or not. It is the nature of babes in Christ to seek the milk of the word. The hard part is letting them find the answers on their own rather than subverting the process of self-study and self-educating by providing quick and easy answers.
It never ceases to amaze me that we are willing to trust the Holy Spirit to lead and guide US into all truth but we somehow have to script or otherwise control the process for others.
Regarding ignorance, all of us that are church leaders should admit our ignorance. Thus, there is a need for continuing education. The biblical imperative, however, is that neophytes (νεοφυτος) should not serve as pastors (1 Timothy 3:6). A list of qualifications for the pastor is not only found in 1 Timothy 3; a list is also found in Titus 1. The pastor/elder/overseer must “be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). If a new church has such a leader(s), it likely will not become a cult. If a new church does not have such a leader(s), it could easily become a cult. Remember that a number of cults have resulted from leaders who have seriously misunderstood key doctrines of the Bible.
I always figured Paul wrote 2 Timothy 2:2 under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Turns out he was just being paternalistic and subverting the process of self-study and self-education.
Not sure what you are saying here, Stuart. I wasn’t suggesting an autodidact approach, although I could see where you would get that from my brief post. However, I see a pedagogical approach used by Paul that is not employed today. He used an internship and OJT approach rather than the current practice of cloistered classroom conditioning followed by being tossed, largely unsupervised, into the deep end of the pool to sink or swim on our own. I don’t see where this method is one we want to export as a discipleship strategy.
First Century discipleship in ministry consisted of formal education followed by a long apprenticeship under a mentor and eventually traveling with peers and students. What opinions do you have about current discipleship methods?
Rick, hopefully all of us agree that neophytes should not be pastors and that all pastors need continuing education. In my opinion, the main missiological issues relevant to the IMB today (i.e., receptivity and ecclesiology) could be summarized by the following description of two schools of thought among Southern Baptist missiologists:
Plan A: We try to reach all people groups at the same time. Receptivity is not an issue. We prioritize people groups whose populations are less than 2 percent evangelical Christian. Speed is important, and we utilize neophytes as pastors of new churches. We don’t have time to slow down and indoctrinate them before they become pastors.
Plan B: We try to reach all people groups, but not at the same time. Receptivity is an issue. We priortize receptive people groups whose populations are less than 20 percent evangelical Christian. We do not utilize neophytes as pastors of new churches. We do have time to slow down and indoctrinate them before they become pastors.
I agree with Plan B. Donald McGavran defined the receptivity principle: “Evangelism can be and ought to be directed to responsive persons, groups, and segments of society.” Conversely, he said that “correct policy is to occupy fields of low receptivity lightly.” (from Understanding Church Growth, pages 187 and 191)
How did McGavran define mainland China? High or low receptivity?
You realize, of course, that his approach would have marked men like Adoniram Judson and Hudson Taylor as horrible failures years into their early ministries. I’m glad you agree with plan B, but why should we restrict it to receptive countries only? I agree that this is no work for neophytes, but I would also caution against modern day John Ryland’s who may be theologically well-versed and steeped in Calvinism, but approach the William Careys of this world with more than a little bit of scorn.
Can I submit that holy men of God should follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit in whatever endeavor He inclines them, regardless of the receptivity of the country? I would agree that I see no benefit in having a host of evangelized neophytes, but at the same time I see that the only cure for the unreceptive countries is to send missionaries there who will love them until they ask why.
I would recommend reading Greg Mortenson’s “Three Cups of Tea” and “Stones into Schools” for a look at how a secularist was able to achieve results in an unreceptive environment. I think his books are pretty instructive to missionaries.
Rick, notice that McGavran said to “occupy fields of low receptivity lightly.” Sometimes missionaries can tell that a field of low receptivity is turning white for harvest. McGavran didn’t say not to occupy them at all. Stewardship is a timeless principle, and thus the receptivity principle is a timeless principle. Utilizing the receptivity principle simply means being a good steward of resources. If you have a truckload of seed, you should not dump most of it on a parking lot. A few seeds might germinate in some cracks, but dumping most of it on a parking lot (hard ground) is simply not good stewardship.
In regard to China, I did case studies on China, Japan, and Korea in my dissertation (Chapter 3). I served as an IMB missionary in South Korea for ten years. The receptivity principle can be clearly seen in those case studies. McGavran noted that evangelism was very successful in China following the Cultural Revolution: “In China alone the decade of the 1980s saw up to 20,000 new Christians per day” (page 3 in Understanding Church Growth). China became very receptive to Christianity after the Cultural Revolution. Foreign missionaries were forced out of China. Christianity in China lost its foreign connections and became completely indigenous. Jeffery Ginn stressed the ramifications for receptivity to the gospel in the minds of the Chinese: “The leaders of the Three Self movement went to great lengths to demonstrate that they could be Christians and contributing, patriotic Chinese at the same time. They felt that the future receptivity of the gospel in China was at stake in taking this crucial position” (Jeffery B. Ginn, “An Examination of the Causes of Church Growth and the Theology of Postliberation Protestant Christianity in China,” Mid-America Theological Journal 12, no. 2 (Fall 1988): 68). Without the perception of foreignness, the gospel was more attractive to the Chinese people. I dislike Communism, but I understand that the Chinese did not like the foreign-looking religion that early missionaries presented in China. Diana Preston explained that the well-meaning missionaries did not understand the importance of indigenous principles, and this factor contributed to the violence of the Boxer rebellion in 1900:
“Christian missionaries—-fresh-faced and idealistic men and women from the American Midwest, bearded priests from Germany and France-—came in search of souls. Often ignorant, dismissive, or contemptuous of the native culture, they and their aggressive proselytizing threatened the very fabric of Chinese family and village life. The Boxers despised their Chinese converts as traitors, ‘rice Christians’ who had sold themselves for a square meal. The Boxers’ simmering resentment erupted across the northern provinces of Shantung, Shansi, and Chihli in the summer of 1900. Chanting mobs surrounded the mission stations and dragged out their terrorized occupants. Some they killed on the spot; others they took to Boxer temples to be slowly tortured to death. Tens of thousands of Chinese converts, Protestant and Catholic, were murdered.”
Diana Preston, The Boxer Rebellion: The Dramatic Story of China’s War on Foreigners That Shook the World in the Summer of 1900 (New York: Berkley Books, 2000), x.
John Nevius saw the mistakes made by missionaries in China during his time there, and he shared his indigenous principles with the newly arrived missionaries in Korea in 1890. Thus, the mission work in Korea became very successful as the missionaries used good indigenous methodology in a receptive area. They also stressed proper indoctrination. Today, South Korea sends out thousands of evangelical missionaries.
Rick, I agree with you that we should follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes, however, Christians think they are being led by the Spirit to a particular place, and they really are not. The Holy Spirit will not lead a person to do something that is in disagreement with Scripture. The receptivity principle is a biblical principle (see chapter 2 of my dissertation), and thus the Holy Spirit will not lead Christians to violate it.
Rick,
I wasn’t trying to be *too* disagreeable with my comment. I suppose I should have asked for clarification as to whether your comment was directed at David in #5, me in #10, or BT.
In any event, I believe a healthy balance lies somewhere in between BT’s Plan A and Plan B. I believe also that most SBs, given the right information, definitions, and understanding would also.
The disconnect I’ve encountered is (anecdotally) this: In trying to discuss these matters with people who prefer plan B, one often encounters accusations of supporting bad theology, poor ecclesiology, ecumnicism, etc. In trying to discuss it with people who are sold out to plan A, one finds that anything less than plan A will necessarily lead to a return to institutional missions, national seminaries, hospitals, cinder-block chapels, etc.
I just happen to believe that there is a healthy, biblical balance that often goes undiscussed.
Not a problem, Stuart. Like you, I don’t see A or B as an either/or approach. I’m an eclectic kind of guy based on my background as an educator who admits that there is no single method of education that will reach all learners with equal effectiveness. I would suspect that missionary evangelism is the same way – what works best in one situation will not work as well (or even at all) in another situation.
Rick and Stuart, it seems to me there is no middle ground in regard to neophytes serving as pastors. Either they can serve as pastors, or they cannot serve as pastors. Also, either the Bible teaches the receptivity principle, or it doesn’t. If the Bible teaches the principle, then we should prioritize receptive groups.
You guys might be interested in knowing the results of a survey I did with Southern Baptists on the receptivity principle (pages 128 to 134 of my dissertation). I purchased a list of 23,779 e-mail addresses of Baptist pastors and churches, and sent a survey with seven questions to them by e-mail twice. I received responses to the survey by e-mail from a total of 694 people (from 101 people after the company sent the first survey letter and from 593 people after I sent the second survey letter). Because it was not based on a random sample, it was not a scientific survey, but I think it nevertheless yielded some interesting information. The seventh question identified them as Southern Baptist pastors or not, and I divided the responders into 2 groups: Southern Baptist pastors (SBP) and other Baptists (OB), a group that included Free Will Baptists, Independent Baptists, Southern Baptists who are not pastors, etc. The questions and response percentages follow:
1. Do you believe that some non-Christian individuals are more receptive to the gospel than are other non-Christian individuals immediately before and during the time when they hear you sharing the plan of salvation?
SBP — 97% yes, 3% no ; OB — 96% yes, 4% no
2. Generally speaking, do you believe that some groups of people are more receptive to the gospel than are other groups of people?
SBP — 90% yes, 10% no ; OB — 90% yes, 10% no
3. When you are considering sharing the plan of salvation with a non-Christian individual, is it helpful for you to know whether that individual is resistant or receptive to the gospel?
SBP — 72% yes, 28% no ; OB — 65% yes, 35% no
4. Do you believe that witnessing programs such as Evangelism Explosion could be improved by adding diagnostic questions that would help you assess the level of receptivity to the gospel of particular individuals?
SBP — 61% yes, 39% no ; OB — 59% yes, 41% no
5. Do you agree with the following paragraph about group receptivity?
“An accurate assessment of the current receptivity of a group should always determine whether that group will be prioritized in terms of resources expended on that group in the immediate future. Some currently receptive groups may become resistant in the more distant future, and such groups should be effectively evangelized while an opportunity exists to do so.”
SBP — 56% yes, 44% no ; OB — 44% yes, 56% no
(Answering “yes” with the word “always” in the paragraph indicates a strong affirmation of the principle.)
6. Do you agree with the following paragraph about individual receptivity?
“An accurate assessment of the current receptivity of an individual should sometimes determine whether that individual will receive a full presentation of the gospel in the immediate future. If the Christian cultivates a good relationship with the resistant non-Christian, the non-Christian may become more receptive in the more distant future. If the Christian is talking to a resistant non-Christian on an airplane, however, the Christian should probably use this one opportunity to share the gospel.”
SBP — 77% yes, 23% no ; OB — 68% yes, 32% no
Rick, you said:
“What works best in one situation will not work as well (or even at all) in another situation.”
I agree with you if you are talking about methods. Principles, however, are universal in application. Edward Dayton and David Fraser discussed this issue:
“People and culture are not like standardized machines that have interchangable parts. We cannot simply use an evangelism approach that has worked in one context in another and expect the same results.”
Dayton and Fraser, Planning Strategies for World Evangelization (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2003), 15.
An example of this is house churches. The Bible describes house churches, but it does not say that official church buildings are sinful. Some missiologists have seen the success of underground house churches in people groups where there is both persecution of Christianity by authorities but also great receptivity to the gospel among a significant number of people. In such circumstances, underground house churches have multiplied rapidly. Seeing this phenomenon, some missiologists have advocated using house churches among all people groups. This reaction is understandable. After all, house churches are less expensive than official church buildings. In some cultures, however, people want to build official church buildings, and they have the resources to do so. The Christians in South Korea, for instance, like official church buildings. We started a house church there led by a non-ordained layman with no seminary training, and the people living around the house believed it was a cult. So, house churches do not work well everywhere. The Bible describes them but does not prescribe them. Thus, it was a biblical methodology but not a biblical principle. Similarly, when a pastor in California wears Hawaiian shirts, that method may work well there, but it might not work well in Tennessee.
Stuart,
Based on Mike’s replies, I think you are correct in saying that passions seem to run high on this topic. I find this interesting.
Mike, what was the intended purpose of your survey?
rick
Rick, it’s on page 135 of my dissertation:
“Implications for IMB and NAMB Leaders
Current IMB and NAMB leaders should fully embrace the receptivity principle. It is both biblical and efficient. They should seriously consider the implications of the receptivity principle when they formulate new strategies.
Many IMB leaders have embraced the receptivity principle in regard to individuals (i.e., finding persons of peace). In contrast, they no longer embrace the receptivity principle in regard to groups. They no longer even embrace the balance of the dual mandates.
Many NAMB leaders have partially embraced the receptivity principle in regard to both individuals and groups. They need to create a new evangelistic program, however, that accommodates non-Christian world views and that includes diagnostic questions which accurately assess the receptivity levels of individuals.
Southern Baptists have not supplied enough financial and human resources to reach all groups at the same time. Thus, IMB and NAMB leaders must prioritize some groups over others. As a matter of good stewardship, they should prioritize receptive groups.
Most of the currently serving Southern Baptist pastors in the author’s survey endorsed the receptivity principle. The strategies developed by IMB and NAMB leaders should reflect the principles held by the majority of Southern Baptist pastors.”
Rick, if you read the whole dissertation, I think a lot of your questions will be answered. I know it’s long, but it’s worth the read. Of course, it’s not surprising that the author of it would say such a thing.
I would dearly love to engage this topic. However, Alas! I’m in the midst of Fireworks Season, and our teams are involved in setting up and shooting a number of large displays all over Mississippi over the next few days.
When you folks watch a Fireworks Display think of us and breathe a word of Prayer that God’s mercy will grant us the grace to overcome the inevitable mistakes, and remain unmaimed, and healthy during the season.
One more point of clarification: South Korean Christians do like home cell groups, but these groups are connected to a headquarters church building with the senior pastor at the top of a pyramid of management. The largest church in the world, the Yoido Full Gospel Church, is an example of such a cell church. The home cell groups are not autonomous, and thus they are not churches. A house church, however, is autonomous. Even non-Christians in South Korea define a church as having an official building and a seminary-trained and ordained pastor(s). The house church concept did not fit into their culture when I was there. That could possibly change if persecution comes and drives them underground.
I had several successful Bible Study Groups in homes in ROK. However, these were in more rural areas along the Northern third of the Country. From the Northern edge of Seoul to Taejon, we did not have such success. But rural Kyonggi-do was responsive.
Mike,
Is there an online copy of it somewhere?
I still think this is in some respects a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we apply this principle to home missions we will see exactly what we are seeing in the US today – a concentration of SBC churches in the Bible belt and very few (if any) SBC churches in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and Northwest. Is that really what we should be doing? I guess we could argue that a SBC church on every other corner throughout the major cities in Georgia, Alabama, Mississipi, Louisiana, and Texas is “good stewardship,” because these areas are culturally more receptive. However, are these our areas of greatest need?
And what about Europe? Receptive or not? Should we evangelize it or not?
Rick, the online copy is here:
http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/#viewpdf?dispub=3388877
The receptivity principle is directly related to what Henry Blackaby said:
“As God’s obedient child, you are in a love relationship with Him. Because He loves you and wants to involve you in His work, He will show you where He is working so you can join Him.”
Henry T. Blackaby, Experiencing God: Knowing and Doing the Will of God, ed. Claude V. King (Nashville: LifeWay Press, 1990), 65.
God is working in a special way in receptive fields, and He wants Christians to join Him there for an effective harvest. In the dissertation I discuss factors for receptivity in chapter 3 and scales for determining receptivity in chapter 5. If we prioritize the white harvest fields, we will have a better harvest and thus more resources to use on all fields in the future. In general, America is less receptive now than when we had our greatest year for baptisms in 1972. Virtually all Christian groups in America have been in decline recently:
“The percentage of people who call themselves in some way Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation. . . . Despite growth and immigration that has added nearly 50 million adults to the U.S. population, almost all religious denominations have lost ground since the first ARIS survey in 1990. . . . ‘The challenge to Christianity … does not come from other religions but from a rejection of all forms of organized religion,’ the report concludes. . . . Baptists, 15.8% of those surveyed, are down from 19.3% in 1990.”
Grossman, USAToday, March 9, 2009.
Even though our American culture is generally non-receptive, some groups and individuals in the culture are more receptive than other groups and individuals. We should prioritize the receptive groups and individuals. Strategy and methodology are now very important:
“If the people group is extraordinarily receptive, then almost any strategy will work. . . . The strongly resistant are difficult to win for Christ with even the best strategies. . . . It is in the middle range of receptivity/resistance that strategy makes the most difference.”
Source: Edward Dayton & David Fraser, Planning Strategies for World Evangelization, 130.
Mike Rasberry, I was in Seoul the first half of my tenure, and I was in Ulsan (near Pusan) the second half.
BT:
I think Rick has raised a good question: Namely, how to tradeoff “receptivity” vs. “need for the Gospel”. It is probably the case that Hattiesburg MS is more “receptive” than New York City.
But we have Baptist (or at least evangelical churches) on every corner in MS. Also, in NYC the situation is: (a) tons of people not evangelized, and (b) very low ratio of evangelical churches per 100,000 people.
If the NAMB was deciding where to send 100 church planters to various cities in the USA wouldn’t it be Biblical to uniquely train and then send some of them for work in places — such as large cities in the Northeast — even if those places are not very “receptive”.
I guess my questions boil down to this: What, if any, criterion — besides receptivity — would you use in determining where in the USA to send church planters.
If I were to draw up my own list of the places where I think the NAMB should focus, the following places would be on my list:
— primary English speaking
New York City
Chicago
San Francisco
Minneapolis – St. Paul
Pittsburgh
Boston
—- primary Spanish speaking
South Texas
Phoenix
Inland Empire (far eastern suburbs of Los Angeles)
What would you add or subtract from that list?
Roger,
A Korean-American couple served with us in Ulsan. They were our closest friends on the field, and we worked with them almost every day as a team. They were over 70 years old. They came to America in the early 1970s, and they established the first Korean Baptist Church in New York City. From what they have told me, it sounds like the Koreans in America have historically been quite receptive to the gospel. When you look at New York City in terms of its evangelistic potential at the present time, you have to look at which groups in it are receptive right now. Interestingly, South Korea has become less receptive to the gospel in recent years, and the percentage of evangelical Christians there has decreased. Evangelism there was much easier in the 1970s, just as it was here. I’m not sure if Hattiesburg MS is generally more receptive than some groups are in New York City. A missiologist should do research to determine both the receptivity level of a potential target group and the percentage of evangelical Christians in that group. You made a list of places where NAMB should focus its efforts. I have not seen enough recent research to know which cities should receive priority. As I said earlier, I believe that the IMB should have two criteria. They should prioritize (1) receptive groups that are (2) less than 20% evangelical Christian. In the USA, I would need to do more research before I would settle on a particular percentage, but I would still prioritize the receptive. Again, it is a matter of stewardship. We don’t want to dump most of our seed on parking lots (hard ground). We can wait until God softens up such hard ground, and we can prioritize currently soft ground.
To clarify, some under-evangelized groups are more receptive than other under-evangelized groups. We should prioritize the under-evangelized groups that are receptive. David Hesselgrave made a good point about an often-heard slogan:
“The question of priorities should never be settled on the basis of simple slogans like, ‘Why should anyone hear the gospel twice before everyone has heard it once?’ How many Christians would there be in the world if the number were reduced to include only those who believed after one hearing? And how will the gospel continue to go to remote tribes and ‘hidden peoples’ unless we plant growing churches elsewhere–churches which provide the resources for those operations?”
Hesselgrave, Planting Churches Cross-Culturally: A Guide for Home and Foreign Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 96.
Well, it looks like I missed a really good discussion here. Let me continue to say though that my theology drives my missiology. This further means that I am not a fan of receptivity principle as it is usually talked about. When Mike tied it to his understanding of Blackaby’s join God where he is working principle I can agree but that is not usually how it is used. Usually it is used to say that Muslims are unresponsive. This of course, has been proven to be untrue. In my theology God is remarkably unconcerned with how difficult or non-responsive a people can be. He has people among all nations. That is a promise as far as I am concerned and the commands he has given us in all the Great Commission texts indicate we should be about getting to them.
Too often responsiveness is measured by human understanding instead of God’s call. My entire Christian life has been an exercise in doing what was not logical nor pragmatic so, I don’t trust statisticians to tell me whether we should be spending more or less money and time on any given people.
What I do believe, and this answers some of David’s questions is that the whole body of Christ working together accomplishes the task. I don’t want someone God has gifted as a pastor in the US to come to Middle Earth. His best place to support the Global Mission is right where he is. What the Church in the West has failed to do is to train and mobilize the millions of other church goers to do what God has called them to do. If they were trained and mobilized there would never be a need to have a discussion about how to parcel out our limited resources.
Thanks again for good discussion and engagement here.
Strider,
I dealt with Muslim receptivity on pages 71 through 82 of my dissertation. Obviously, some Muslim groups are more receptive than other Muslim groups.
Strider said:
“Well, it looks like I missed a really good discussion here.”
Actually, I was hoping you would jump in, whenever you could, and give us your take on the various issues raised during the discussion. I think there is still a bit of good “juice” to be squeezed out of this one.
For those who have read Piper’s “Let the Nations Be Glad!”, I think there are some interesting perspectives contained therein that apply directly to the discussion of receptivity vis-à-vis unreachedness (is that a word?). I am especially interested in Mike Morris’s take on Piper, and to what degree his thinking has influenced Strider in the views he presents here.
If anyone interested in this discussion has not read “Let the Nations Be Glad!”, and wants to know more, perhaps I could give a brief summary of Piper’s thinking regarding these issues. Just speak up.
Mike,
Thank you for the link. I’ve downloaded and started previewing the e-copy. Coupla questions. How involved was your faculty advisor in evaluating your dissertation prior to submission? I trust that he had input into your direction, but did he do a thorough reading before you submitted this?
Have you defended this yet? If so, how did it go? I’m curious as I have had friends who’ve attended Mid America.
The reason I ask is because you describe the aim or your paper as, “This dissertation seeks to show that an accurate assessment of the current receptivity of a group should determine whether that group will be prioritized in terms of resources expended on that group in the immediate future. This dissertation also seeks to show that an accurate assessment of the current receptivity of an individual should sometimes determine whether that individual will receive a full presentation of the gospel in the immediate future.” However, your definition of receptivity is to quote McGavrin, “Evangelism can be and ought to be directed to responsive persons, groups, and segments of society.” Maybe it’s just me, but this doesn’t look like a definition. According to this statement, what can we say receptivity is? It may seem obvious to say that receptivity is the measure of how receptive a person is to the gospel. Isn’t this a tautological definition? If you define receptivity as a measure of how responsive a person is, then you define the term by itself. Not only that, you leave out what constitutes a “receptive” person or group. At least that is how it seems to me
Additionally, you state in your abstract, “The author also concludes that Southern Baptists must be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit in their witnessing to individuals. North American Mission Board leaders need to create a new evangelistic program that includes diagnostic questions that can be adapted to non-Christian world views and that accurately assesses the receptivity levels of individuals. Finally, the author concludes that all Southern Baptist leaders should fully embrace the receptivity principle so that they will be more effective in their evangelistic and church planting efforts.” This strikes me as an identical proposition to your “definition” of receptivity, i.e. that evangelism should be targeted at receptive people.
Beyond that, I really have some reservations about your thesis: “The thesis of this dissertation is that accurate assessment of resistance or receptivity should strongly influence evangelistic prioritization.” However, your assessment instrument was only used one time and it only assessed individual responsiveness. In other words, even if your instrument were accurate at assessing receptivity and had predictive ability regarding evangelistic success (which you admit that it doesn’t have because even receptive people in some cases will still reject the gospel), it still has no bearing on group receptivity. You seem to make the tacit assumption that group receptivity is an aggregate of individual receptivity, which I would say you need to establish rather than presume.
I really am curious to see what the response is to this paper because even if your thesis is valid, most of what I have read in your paper for support is largely anecdotal. I see no controlled experiments. I see no data tables showing anything more than opinions or feelings. I see nothing in it to indicate that:
A. You can effectively measure the receptivity (a quality, characteristic, or affective stance that you never define in this paper) in individuals.
B. You can use receptivity as a predictor of evangelistic success.
C. You can accurately assess receptivity on a quantifiable scale for a group.
D. You can translate these results to church planting success, gospel penetration, etc.
E. You can demonstrate a positive ROI that correlates with individual or group receptivity.
Let me know what Mid America’s thinking is on this. I think it will be pretty insightful with respect to the quality of their Ph.D. program if they see the same things that I see. Keep in mind that I am not only NOT a Ph.D., I don’t even have a Masters degree, so this is from the perspective of a lowly little instructional designer who has done a bit of dabbling in the affective domain from an educational effectiveness perspective.
I would suggest that you might find Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Affective Domain to be a much more helpful scale than any you include in your paper. I would be happy to discuss this with you off list as this is pretty arcane for some folks. I also might have some resources on Bloom I can forward to you for evaluation. You can contact me through the “Contact Us” portion of our web site http://www.ill-legalism.com since I hesitate to publish my e-mail address openly on the web for obvious reasons.
I will have some limited time tomorrow to continue if anyone is still interested in discussing this further. I would not mind getting after some of David’s questions then- I am exhausted now having just returned from a very hot village in the south after three days of failing to dig a well.
Rick, you may or may not have a degree but your intellect is brutal. I am glad we usually agree, I would hate to have to oppose you.
One thing I will mention is David’s Reference to Let the Nations Be Glad. I loved that book because I already believed the things it talked about. I still believe in the old slogan of our CSI days, ‘All Peoples, Nothing Less.’ I disagree with most catalogues of people groups left to be evangelized as they are exaggerated and include people groups that no longer- or never did- live in communities. But I am committed to the idea that God can reach anyone and He wants to. If the receptivity principle has any value it should be a pointer to doors of opportunities God is opening today without eliminating doors that yet need to be kicked in.
Rick, you asked:
1. “How involved was your faculty advisor in evaluating your dissertation prior to submission? I trust that he had input into your direction, but did he do a thorough reading before you submitted this?”
He was involved and did suggest changes which I made. Three of our missiology faculty members read and evaluated it before I submitted it. I also had an external reader from Southwestern Baptist Seminary who read it and approved it. He also hired me as a missions professor at SWBTS.
2. “Have you defended this yet? If so, how did it go? I’m curious as I have had friends who’ve attended Mid America.”
Yes, I defended it and passed with flying colors.
3. “Your definition of receptivity is to quote McGavrin.”
Nope, I used McGavran to define the “receptivity principle” not “receptivity”:
“Donald McGavran defined the receptivity principle of the classic Church Growth Movement: ‘Evangelism can be and ought to be directed to responsive persons, groups, and segments of society.’ Conversely, he said that ‘correct policy is to occupy fields of low receptivity lightly.’” (page 1 in dissertation)
I defined receptivity during the course of the paper as I discussed having an open mind toward the gospel. The principle has been discussed for decades, but some missiologists do not believe that it is a biblical principle. Here are some citations where I described receptivity as having an open mind from the paper:
“Harvest fields are receptive fields that contain a large percentage of harvestable individuals—individuals that have an open mind about the gospel.” (8)
“Receptive groups contain a large percentage of individuals that have an open mind about the gospel.” (21)
“Immediately before and during the time they hear the gospel, some non-Christians have an open mind about the gospel and are willing to consider surrendering their lives to Christ in repentance and faith.” (33)
“Immediately before and during the time they hear the gospel, some people have an open mind about the gospel and are willing to consider surrendering their lives to Christ in repentance and faith. Thus, they are receptive. Other people, however, have closed minds about the gospel and are not willing to consider surrendering their lives to Christ in repentance and faith. Thus, they are resistant.” (160)
4. “This strikes me as an identical proposition to your ‘definition’ of receptivity, i.e. that evangelism should be targeted at receptive people.”
Again, I was defining the “receptivity principle,” not “receptivity,” so I was emphasizing that the receptivity principle should be followed for greater effectiveness.
5. “However, your assessment instrument was only used one time and it only assessed individual responsiveness. In other words, even if your instrument were accurate at assessing receptivity and had predictive ability regarding evangelistic success (which you admit that it doesn’t have because even receptive people in some cases will still reject the gospel), it still has no bearing on group receptivity. You seem to make the tacit assumption that group receptivity is an aggregate of individual receptivity, which I would say you need to establish rather than presume.”
I indeed noted that group receptivity is an aggregate of individual receptivity:
“Harvest fields are receptive fields that contain a large percentage of harvestable individuals—individuals that have an open mind about the gospel.” (8)
The assessment instrument I used on individuals (pages 143-148) was designed for individuals:
“The author developed diagnostic questions to help Christians accurately assess the receptivity level of non-Christian individuals.”
These questions can be helpful in assessing a group, but a more comprehensive instrument is necessary for correctly assessing a group. Engel’s scale is particularly helpful as it examines the characteristics of the group as a whole:
“Engel’s assessment scale describes ‘-8′ as ‘Awareness of Supreme Being,’ ‘-7′ as ‘Some Knowledge of Gospel,’ ‘-6′ as ‘Knowledge of Fundamentals of Gospel,’ ‘-5′ as ‘Grasp of Personal Implications of Gospel,’ ‘-4′ as ‘Positive Attitude toward Act of Becoming a Christian,’ ‘-3′ as ‘Problem Recognition and Intention to Act,’ ‘-2′ as ‘Decision to Act,’ ‘-1′ as ‘Repentance and Faith in Christ,’ ‘+1′ as ‘Post Decision Evaluation,’ ‘+2′ as ‘Incorporation into Church,’ and ‘+3′ as ‘Conceptual and Behavioral Growth.’” (page 137-138 in dissertation)
6. “I really am curious to see what the response is to this paper because even if your thesis is valid, most of what I have read in your paper for support is largely anecdotal.”
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary on “anectodal”:
“Based on personal experience or reported observations unverified by controlled experiments.”
My impression is that most missiological research is of this type. It would be very expensive and perhaps impossible in many situations to do a controlled experiment on a people group.
7. “I see nothing in it to indicate that: A. You can effectively measure the receptivity (a quality, characteristic, or affective stance that you never define in this paper) in individuals.”
On page 29 I stated, “God’s action of counteracting an individual’s depravity is an integral element in the ordo salutis. A non-Christian cannot become a Christian unless God makes that non-Christian receptive to the gospel.”
Can we measure other parts of the ordo salutis? There is a spiritual dimension involved that cannot be scientifically measured.
8. “I would suggest that you might find Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Affective Domain to be a much more helpful scale than any you include in your paper.”
Bloom’s Taxonomy deals with the affective, psychomotor, and cognitive domains. It does not deal with the spiritual domain. Bloom’s Taxonomy can be useful for us to determine if particular children are capable of intellectually understanding the gospel, but it is not particularly helpful for determining the spiritual state of other people.
To clarify #7 above, we may not be able to scientifically assess the receptivity of an individual or group, but I believe we can accurately assess the receptivity if we are spiritually sensitive and take into consideration the factors that God uses to make individuals and groups receptive.
David, you said:
“For those who have read Piper’s ‘Let the Nations Be Glad!,’ I think there are some interesting perspectives contained therein that apply directly to the discussion of receptivity vis-à-vis unreachedness (is that a word?). I am especially interested in Mike Morris’s take on Piper, and to what degree his thinking has influenced Strider in the views he presents here.”
Everyone knows Piper is a passionate speaker, and his passion shows through in this book. I’ll make a few comments on some quotes from the book:
“The task of missions may not be merely to win as many individuals as possible from the most responsive people groups of the world, but rather to win individuals from all the people groups of the world. . . . What we are going to see in this chapter is that God’s call for missions in Scripture cannot be defined in terms of crossing cultures to maximize the total number of individuals saved. Rather God’s will for missions is that every people group be reached with the testimony of Christ and that a people be called out for his name from all the nations.” (169-170)
“A group would be reached when mission efforts have established an indigenous church that has the strength and resources to evangelize the rest of the group.” (209)
“There are two problems that I will deal with only briefly here in a note because they are not part of Biblical revelation and do not seem to have much bearing on the missionary task. 1) One is whether all the peoples will be represented at the throne of God even without missions because infants in each of these peoples have died and presumably will go to heaven and come to maturity for the praise of God. 2) The other problem is whether all clans and tribes will in fact be represented at the throne of God since many clans and tribes no doubt died out before they were evangelized. 1) With regard to the first problem I do believe that infants who die will be in the kingdom. . . . 2) With regard to the other problem it may be true that some clans and tribes disappear from history with none of their members being saved. The Bible does not reflect on this issue.” (footnote, pages 208-209)
I think Piper would fit more into Plan A than Plan B (comment #16 above). He does not agree with the receptivity principle. Rather, he advocates establishing evangelical beachheads in every people group. The third quote is interesting. Many people who advocate Plan A want to see representatives from every people group worshiping God in heaven, and thus they want to prioritize the establishment of beachheads in every people group. Piper admits, however, that every people group is already guaranteed representation in heaven because of the dead infants from every people group. He also says that some people groups may have disappeared without any converts to Christianity. In those cases, dead infants would be their only representatives in heaven.
Thank you for your lengthy explanation, Mike. I appreciate the time and effort you put into it. It does help me to assess the level of scholarship to know that this was approved and passed with flying colors. Congratulations on obtaining your Ph.D. I’m glad this resulted in a position for you at SWBTS.
Have you read Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Affective Domain? Most people are familiar with his taxonomy of the cognitive domain. (As far as I know, he and Krathwohl et al. never did get to the psychomotor domain.) Additionally, his taxonomies were not intended for diagnostic purposes or readiness assessments as you imply in your answer. That’s why I ask if you have actually read what the group produced. I own a copy of his Affective taxonomy and am convinced that you would find it helpful, particularly in your role as Missiology professor. I would be happy to discuss this in another thread if anyone is interested, but it tends to be a bit far afield from the Receptivity Principle, although it is tangentially related.
I wish you well in your efforts. I confess that even after reading what you’ve written, both here and in your paper, I am still more inclined to agree with Strider. I find very little of practical use in your paper, either as a diagnostic tool or a predictor of evangelistic success. I don’t buy into the notion that group receptivity is the sum of the receptivity of individuals in the group. Even if group receptivity were low, I would still be able to find individuals with high receptivity and feel obligated to share the gospel with them.
I appreciate the work that you have put into this subject. I just don’t agree with your conclusions. As a teacher, I managed groups very differently from how I managed individuals. I still do. I will continue to do so in both my educational efforts as well as my evangelistic practices. I do not think these are mere differences of scale, but magnitudinal differences in kind.
Clarification: I like the idea of having an evangelical beachhead in every people group, but I don’t think all people groups can be effectively reached at the same time. God does not make all of them receptive at the same time. As I explained in chapter 2 of my dissertation, the biblical pattern is that God makes some groups more receptive than others at particular times. The receptivity principle was illustrated in the ministries of both Jesus and Paul. Again, as good stewards we should not dump most of our seed on parking lots. We should prioritize the receptive groups.
Rick,
Thanks for your comments. To answer your question, I have not read Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Affective Domain. You said:
“I don’t buy into the notion that group receptivity is the sum of the receptivity of individuals in the group. Even if group receptivity were low, I would still be able to find individuals with high receptivity and feel obligated to share the gospel with them.”
Are you sure about that? Some missionaries have worked faithfully for years in non-responsive countries and have not had one convert. Dorothy Van Ess, for instance, admitted that her mission was not able to lead Muslims to Christ in Iraq:
“From early days our mission had not converts from Islam, but ‘born Christians,’ descendants of one of the minorities in Asiatic Turkey who had never become Muslims.”
Dorothy F. Van Ess, Pioneers in the Arab World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 159-160.
We Americans are very individualistic and we don’t understand the influence of the group in some other cultures. Roland Muller’s book, “Honor and Shame,” would be very helpful to you to understand the difference between guilt cultures, shame cultures, and fear cultures. In Asia, where I worked, many people live in group-oriented shame cultures. A person might commit suicide if he brings shame upon the family. In other shame cultures, a father might kill a daughter for bringing shame on the family. In such group-oriented cultures, however, people movements are possible. McGavran described people movements:
“The way to approach many of the world’s peoples with the gospel had to be through the encouragement of a multi-individual, mutually interdependent conversion process whereby members of families, extended families, clans, villages, and tribes would become Christian at the same time.”
In people movements, the group has to be receptive. The individual still makes the key commitment to surrender his life to Christ in repentance and faith, but he is nevertheless strongly influenced by the group. Church Planting Movements also occur where groups are receptive. I asked an IMB affinity group leader the following question:
“Do you believe that people movements and church planting movements only occur among receptive groups of people?”
He answered the question affirmatively:
“That’s a difficult question. I would say with my understanding of these two terms here, and looking at the ones that I am most familiar with, it would seem that this statement is true. I can’t recall any kind of situations where I know that there’s been a people that has been strongly resistant where the work of the Lord, the Spirit of God, really broke out among a people and there was a great harvest of souls among a people. So I think maybe my bias right now, based upon what I know right now—and my mind could be persuaded differently—is that yes, they would occur among receptive peoples.” (page 44-45 in dissertation)
Rick, I enjoyed our discussion. Best wishes to you in your ministry. The biblical basis of the receptivity principle hasn’t been discussed yet on this thread. If anyone would like to discuss it, I dealt with it in chapter 2 of the dissertation.
David, I know you subscribe to Evangelical Missions Quarterly. I submitted an article based on my dissertation, and it is tentatively scheduled for publication in the April, 2011 issue of EMQ. If anyone else wants to subscribe to the online edition, you can do so at the following address:
https://www.billygrahamcenter.com/emqonline/
I’m short on time, but just want to add that, yes, Mike, I would agree (per your comment in 21 above) that Scripture is clear on the subject of neophytes serving as partors, which I why I suggested to Rick that a healthy, BIBLICAL balance exists between Plan A and Plan B.
Rick, yes passions run deep. That leads to a tendency to want to state methodological differences in terms of “biblical” and “unbiblical”, or good vs. bad theology. Both sides do it. And it makes it very difficult to discuss a (biblical and balanced) middle way.
Stuart, thanks for your comment. The problem is that Plan A calls for a lot of speed, and it slows down if the missionary takes the time to properly prepare a candidate for pastor. In some cultures, it takes longer than in other cultures. On Paul’s first missionary journey, he probably appointed men who had studied the Old Testament quite a bit (Jews and Gentiles attached to the synagogues). In a culture with no previous exposure to God’s Word, however, the training would likely require much more time.
Mike,
You do note that I’ve not here in any way advocated for “Plan A” as you’ve described it, right?
Stuart, I understand.
Thanks guys for a continuing good discussion. I would agree with BT’s evaluation that most missions scholarship is anecdotal. And anecdotally there are examples of resistant peoples turning to the Lord. Nineveh under the preaching of Jonah and several people groups in India and China have turned to the Lord in great numbers. I am a big fan of the beachhead principle discussed. This strategy maximizes discipleship and keeps us from making people too dependent on the foreign experts. I think this is my main problem with ‘harvest fields’. If the foreign expert does all the work in the harvest fields how will those fields ever mature and grow on their own?
A note about new believer pastors. I think there is a lot of misconceptions about David Garrison’s reporting of what is happening with new believers who are made pastors. One key issue is the understanding of what a pastor is. If we consider our Western definition of ‘pastor is a CEO of a large organization’ then making young believers pastors is disastrous in the extreme. But what generally happens- and certainly is what I do- is that a new believer in a new area comes to faith, then we encourage that person to have the new church meet in his home. The older believer, or foreigner if that is the case, meets with him and trains him. He leads his group in his house under the leadership of the Holy Spirit who I have found to be surprisingly active and effective when we trust in him. The new church usually stays quite small for a long time- at least here in my experience. Then as the young believer matures God gives him more responsibilities, more people in his small church and more opportunities to train others to start churches in their homes. In my context this has been a matter of years. In other contexts it has been much faster but only holds together with good mentorship and a strong reliance on the Holy Spirit.
Did I actually say, ‘most missions scholarship is anecdotal’? That is humorous and I will definitely save that for later. What I of course, meant to say was most missions RESEARCH is anecdotal. I trust we can all laugh at my mistake. I am.
Strider,
I would argue that the people of Nineveh were very receptive (in some sense) when Jonah preached to them. Frank Page wrote the New American Commentary on Jonah. Notice what he said about the immediate reaction of the Ninevites in Jonah 3:5 and the factors God apparently used to make them receptive to Jonah’s message:
“The revival broke out in the city on the first day. They accepted en masse the divine source of Jonah’s message, believing that what had been threatened might be carried out. The very size of Nineveh enhanced the nature of this miracle. Ellul is correct in stating that ‘we are here in the presence of a mystery and a miracle.’ All the odds were against Nineveh’s accepting this message. After all, as Baldwin notes, ‘When Jeremiah preached a century or more later that Jerusalem would be overthrown, he was arrested and imprisoned for treason (Jer 26:8), although he was well known as the prophet of God.’ One would not expect them to react to this strange prophet in this manner. One would imagine widespread questioning and doubt. . . . We might expect the people of Nineveh would have responded with an incredulous sneer. Obviously the Ninevites did ‘believe.’ The important question here, however, is what did they believe? . . . The Hebrew phrase means only that they believed what Jonah’s God said would happen. It is best to understand the phrase as the NIV (and the NRSV) translates it, ‘believed God.’ . . . . Jesus’ own testimony is that ‘they repented at the preaching of Jonah’ with the result that they will be present at the judgment condemning those who rejected Jesus’ preaching. It is hard, then, to deny that at least some of the Ninevites were genuinely converted. . . . There can be no question that the change was relatively short-lived, but it seems that at least a few experienced a repentance that led to eternal life. . . . It is true that Nineveh did make a miraculous turn toward a correct faith, but we are uncertain whether they were being converted to Judaism, the Lord, or even monotheism. The response of the people of Nineveh was great, but it may have been primarily just a turning away from violence and wickedness. . . . Nineveh was in a time of national crisis. . . . Their sense of well being would have been extremely low as a result of famine, enemy attacks, and internal revolts. There was even a full eclipse of the sun in 763 B.C. . . . This caused a great deal of religious uncertainty. As Williams explains, the people of Nineveh would have been looking eagerly for understanding of their situation from the omens. God had apparently been using these factors to prepare them to receive Jonah’s message.”
Page, “Jonah,” vol. 19B in the New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 263-266.
I agree and therefore the question is “what instrument would have predicted this?” one of my colleages says that you wiill know when someone is ready to hear the Gospel when you preach to them the Gospel. Our command is not receptivity but proclamation. For me the receptivity principle indicates how we should engage not if. If I am reading you rightly I think you agree.
BT:
IF the NAMB wanted to develop a list of the top 20 receptive cities in the USA what would it take for them to do it? Could they complete this task in six months?
Would it be feasible for the NAMB to do a dual blind study such as: choose 20 cities/locales and then rank them by “receptivity”. Control the experiment so that the “same” evangelistic activity happens in all 20 cities and then determine if, in fact, the results actually vary on a per city basis as predicted based upon the “receptivity” survey.
There are two questions: (1) Should we focus on places that are likely to be receptive? (2) Is there any way to predict receptivity via some type of survey or instrument?
Brother Strider,
Excellent post and string of comments. I think the line “For me the receptivity principle indicates how we should engage not if.” ….sums up, very well,… the entire post.
I will be praying for your mission endeavors and your team!
BT,
Good to see you engage here and congratulation on your appointment in Fort Worth. Southwestern will be blessed with your commitment to biblical fidelity and your desire to teach the gospel of God. If I get back to Fort Worth,.. I’m buying the coffee and lunch!
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I have found a Cracker Barrel in Fort Worth, so we can get together either for breakfast or lunch. I’ll look forward to seeing you again.
Roger, I think the state conventions can be helpful to NAMB in the research phase. Before I became a church planter in Tennessee, the Tennessee Baptist Convention assessed me, put me through three days of training at one of the state assemblies (camps), and supplied me with good demographic information about my field of service. I think NAMB could develop a list of the top 20 receptive cities if other entities cooperated in the endeavor. Receptivity can change rapidly, so current research is important. In regard to the blind study you mentioned, I’m not sure something like that could be done as you describe. The cities would vary in total population and in the number of groups in each city. One form of evangelism might work well for one group in one city but not for another group in the same city. I covered the factors involved in receptivity on pages 45 through 50 of my dissertation. When you see these factors at work in a group, you can predict that the group is becoming receptive, but you still need to send some people to probe the group and test the soil (accurately assess their receptivity). We should focus on groups that are likely to be receptive.
Roger, I’ve been multi-tasking today and haven’t had much time to answer your questions. I had church work this morning and honey-do stuff this afternoon. Let me try to give you some more specifics on what I would do off the top of my head if I were going to try to identify and evangelize the 20 most receptive cities in America.
1. I’d see what information NAMB already has about the receptivity of various cities in America.
2. I’d talk to state conventions about what they consider to be their most receptive cities and receptive groups within the cities.
3. I’d talk to DOMs in various cities. The DOMs usually know what groups in their city are receptive. I would need to know how many groups in each city are receptive and how large the receptive groups are.
4. After doing the above, I’d send spiritually mature Christians who have some missiology training to cities under consideration to probe various groups within each city. Mature Christians can sense the movement of the Spirit in the lives of people. They can tell if a particular field is white for harvest.
5. After gathering all this information, which would describe observations of overtly spiritual factors and also seemingly non-spiritual factors that God uses to make people receptive, I would make my list of the 20 most receptive cities.
6. I would then assess and prepare potential church planters for those places in cooperation with NAMB, the state conventions, and the associations in those cities. These church planters would do world view studies of their target groups and would develop a master plan to reach those groups. I would want the church planters to work as part of a team, not in isolation. They would need to be accountable to a sponsoring church and association in their area of operation. I would want them to attend staff meetings at particular churches on a weekly basis for encouragement, prayer, strategy help, and accountability. (I did this when I planted a church in Tennessee, and it was very helpful to me.) Ideally, the church planters would draw salary and other resources from NAMB, the state conventions, the associations, and/or local churches in their area.
Strider, you said:
“I agree and therefore the question is ‘what instrument would have predicted this?’ one of my colleages says that you wiill know when someone is ready to hear the Gospel when you preach to them the Gospel. Our command is not receptivity but proclamation. For me the receptivity principle indicates how we should engage not if. If I am reading you rightly I think you agree.”
I think stewardship is again a key issue in regard to what you said. I have had pretty good success witnessing to people at a mall in Memphis. Sometimes I start talking to someone who is not receptive, and I disengage if the person does not want to receive my witness. I have not wasted much time or money by spending a few minutes with such a resistant person. On the other hand, if a mission agency spends the money to transport me (trained to reap a harvest) overseas to a resistant group (whose level of resistance was previously unknown to them), rent an apartment, supply a vehicle, train me in the language, etc., the mission agency will be out quite a bit of money. After my arrival, if I conclude that the resistant group is about to turn receptive, and if I am trained to work in that context, then I can say that the mission board did not exercise poor stewardship. If I stay there until I retire and see no fruit from my work, however, can we say that the mission board exercised good stewardship when it sent me there without having any idea about the resistance level of the group? Would it have been better stewardship to have done some temporary probing and evaluation of the resistance level through trained missionaries before sending me there as a career missionary (trained to harvest)? Had the agency known about the resistance, would it have been better stewardship to have sent a trained missionary there to do some temporary plowing in preparation for sowing?
McGavran had some good comments on this topic:
“Recognition of variations in receptivity is offensive to some missiologists because they fear that, if they accept it, they will be forced to abandon resistant fields. Abandonment is not called for. Fields must be sown. Stony fields must be plowed before they are sown. No one should conclude that if receptivity is low, the church should withdraw evangelistic efforts. Correct policy is to occupy fields of low receptivity lightly. The harvest will ripen someday. Their populations are made up of men and women for whom Christ died. While they continue in their rebellious and resistant state, they should be given the opportunity to hear the gospel in as courteous a way as possible. But they should not be heavily occupied lest, fearing that they will be swamped by Christians, they become even more resistant. They should not be badgered and bothered. Generations should not be reared in schools where–receiving small doses of the gospel that they successfully reject–they are in effect inoculated against the Christian religion. Resistant lands should be held lightly. While holding them lightly, Christian leaders should perfect organizational arrangements so that when these lands turn responsive, missionary resources can be sent in quickly.”
McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, Third Edition, 190-191.
BT:
Thanks for your throughtful reply. I have never considered the idea of “receptivity” prior to this blog thread.
I wonder if there is some parallelism between “receptivity” on the part of the hearers and “calling” on the part of those with the Gospel message.
For example:
CALLING –> God told Paul to go to the Gentiles in Europe [Acts 16:6-10]
RECEPTIVITY –> Evidently the Holy Sprit was at work with those who would hear in Philippi. The text says that Lydia “worshiped God” –implying that she was “receptive”. [Acts 16:14]
Roger, you are absolutely correct. Notice that the Spirit did not permit Paul to go into Bithynia (Acts 16:7). Paul had the vision of the man of Macedonia asking for help (Acts 16:9). Paul found receptive people (including Lydia) in Philippi, “a leading city of the district of Macedonia” (Acts 16:12-14). I mentioned this incident on page 20 of my dissertation.
One last point I would like to make concerning this issue is once again to ask ‘what is God about?’ What is He up to? An oft quoted but rarely applied verse says that without faith it is impossible to please him. It is clear that God is love and therefore loves all. But if that translates into, ‘God is trying to save the most people possible’ then Universalism would make the most sense. If He just wanted to ‘fill heaven up with the most people’ then he could just declare all saved and fill it up. But He hasn’t done that (and yes, He is God so He could do it if He wanted to). No, He is about creating men and women of faith. It is the redeemed and transformed He is filling Heaven with. Those of greatest faith are found in the toughest places. I know men and women who live in abysmal isolation, poverty, persecution, who yet stand up in faith and worship the living God and hold fast to His Son Jesus against all odds. If we will be on mission with Him we will be about seeing more like this come into the Kingdom.
And as far as working in difficult places goes I can confidently say that the ministry that He has me on now is bearing more fruit than ever before. Gondor has not changed but I have. It has not taken fourteen years of pulling stones out of the hearts of men and women here in Gondor but my own heart and life that has changed the most that is now resulting in a harvest of wonderful men and women of faith. The harvest is yet small on a world wide scale but such men, women, and children will shine brighter in heaven than this poor servant will ever hope to. This must be considered as we go forward determining where God would have us go next.
Strider, I am glad that your ministry is bearing fruit. I have enjoyed hearing about your ministry in Gondor the past couple of years.
Rick Presley – in comment 3, you said “I was talking to a missionary and his wife last night about their change of station.” I’m curious why you phrased your sentence this way?
Beth,
It was the shortest phrase available to describe what has been a 9 month process of leaving one mission organization and finding another. I’ve been closely involved in their situation and tend to long detailed explanations of details irrelevant to the main post.
Why do you ask?
rick
Strider,
Late on my blog reading so I just now got to this one, excellent post! As a missions pastor who has worked among UPG’s and sought to mobilize SB churches to do the same, I am blown away by how few understand UPG work and even more amazed at how many do not engage UPG’s at any level.
Keep saying it and if you ever come near RVA, would love to meet you.
Now that I have the luxury of a relaxing day at home unencumbered by all the holiday hullabaloo, I went back and read Strider’s original post and the ensuing comment stream and would like to apologize for my adventure in missing the point. I was engaged in Mike’s dissertation when that was not what this post was about at all.
Strider’s “The resources needed for the harvest are found in the harvest” message fell by the wayside. I’ve since contemplated that phrase and feel strongly with him and others who commented that he has once again hit the nail on the head. We do need to be about the business of reaping the harvest, but then we also need to be about the task of discipleship. So, to further the discussion, how do we do that?
One of the missionaries we support is on the verge of completing a nurse practitioner project. She is training Haitian nurses to be NP’s. Her next task is to evaluate the success of the program, see if they find jobs and are actually utilized as NP’s, and submitting it to the government. I think this is an excellent example of Strider’s principle of equipping the seed to sow other seed.
Another missionary doesn’t do any church planting or evangelism at all. He is a project manager bringing American business acumen to emerging economies. He is looking at being involved in building a hospital in a predominantly Muslim area.
What are some other areas where we have missionaries involved in letting the harvest provide the means for reaping the next harvest?
Just curious why you didn’t say “two missionaries” or “a missionary couple.” The wife is just as much a missionary.
Just like “a pastor and his wife”?
Be careful Rick, I think Beth is out to get you:)
Thanks Ken, I go on STAS in Sept of 2011. We just might run into you.
As far as Rick’s question of how to better disciple and mobilize one of the biggest issues in my opinion is trust. If we will make disciples then they must be expected to be ministers from the beginning. Look at John 4. Jesus is baptizing, but not Jesus rather his disciples were baptizing. This is extremely early in Jesus ministry (John the Baptist was still alive). Sure Judas- who was presumably baptizing like the others- betrayed him but that didn’t stop Jesus from empowering the disciples. Why? Because if He didn’t they wouldn’t be disciples. They had to be about the work from the beginning. Now look at any of our Western Churches and tell me where we do this? It happens but very rarely. We M’s on the field have done little better and I will tell you flat out what I believe about this. We are not mistrusting those we are called to make disciples but the Holy Spirit who is at work in them. We must give up the illusion of control and let God be the Lord of our lives and theirs.
No, a pastor and his wife is not the same thing as a missionary and his wife. For the IMB, both husband and wife are appointed as missionaries, both go through the same process of appointment. For pastors, only the husband is ordained, and only the husband serves as the pastor even though his wife carries a far amount of responsibility within the church.
Strider – I’m not sure what you mean “Beth is out to get you.” Wouldn’t your wife consider herself just as much of a missionary as you?
Beth, how do you account for this artificial distinction that a pastor and wife is not the same as a missionary and wife? Don’t you find this odd?
Beth, I was just having fun as you seemed to be examining Rick’s word choice pretty carefully. For the record, my wife takes her appointment and position very seriously. But actually, her role as my wife and coworker were not any different than her role when I was a pastor. She ministered there as well- as I believe the entire body of Christ should and not just those ‘ordained’. What Rick is getting at is our modern Church structure which says that it is ok to say a woman has a gift, a calling, a role, but we don’t dare write it down on paper!
Worse than that, Strider, is that we can, as Beth affirmed quite strenuously, write that down on paper if she is willing to serve with her husband outside of this country. We are only unwilling to write it down if she serves in an identical capacity within our borders.
Personally, I don’t have a dog in this fight one way or the other as I consider this pretty much a semantic game to support a particular approach to theology, which other people take very seriously. What I find amusing is the obvious double standard that wants to elevate missionary wives at the expense of pastor wives (even though that is not the intent).
Another fun distinction is when a woman who has been working as a foreign missionary starts working in home missions. Has her status changed or just her location?
So is someone saying we should call an elder’s wife an “elder”? If so, that’s a problem. If not, this is kind of trivial. I agree that both a missionary calling and a pastoral calling is a family calling, but the family members may or may not all be pastors or missionaries. My wife is my wife, and I am more happy about that than any other title she could be given, and she is too.
Andrew,
I was simply trying to be socratic (as opposed to pedantic which is my default setting as a teacher). Beth objected to my use of the phrase, “a missionary and his wife,” because, in her words, “The wife is just as much a missionary.”
When I asked why this does not apply to a pastor and his wife, she replied, “No, a pastor and his wife is not the same thing as a missionary and his wife. For the IMB, both husband and wife are appointed as missionaries, both go through the same process of appointment. For pastors, only the husband is ordained, and only the husband serves as the pastor even though his wife carries a far amount of responsibility within the church.”
I appreciate her distinction. My question is whether this is warranted or if it is merely a double standard. Why is it that if a church planting couple heads overseas, they are a missionary couple, but if they stay within the borders of our country they are a church-planting pastor and his wife? Or am I wrong? Does NAMB appoint couples, just like IMB?
Several years ago I was speaking in a church and after I finished the pastor got up to speak. There were several young people at the service. The pastor said, “It is my prayer that God will call some of you young men to be missionaries.” After a pause he said, “It is also my prayer that God will call some of you young ladies to be wives of missionaries.”