Missions Support

Hannah Bello · Nov 20, 2016

Hello my brothers and sisters in Christ.
I am 20 years old and I have been called into the missions field and I leave to join YWAM (Youth With A Mission) this January for training before being sent to Greece to spread the Gospel. I am in need of 12,000 dollars before I leave for all expenses over 8 months and I'm nowhere close. I know this is where God wants me to be so He will provide the funds, but my faith is a little shaky right now. Add on to that the fact that the enemy has been spiritually attacking me like crazy since I accepted the call, I am in need of a lot of prayer. Please be praying for me, my finances, and my relationship with Christ.
Thank you.
Hannah.

Hannah Bello · Dec 5, 2016

StudentoftheBible said:
Hi Hannah!

I hate to break this to you, but Greece is 98% Christian. In fact, it's one of the most religious countries in all of Europe.

And you realize that a large portion of Greece right now is Muslim refugees, right?

Greenlee · Dec 5, 2016

StudentoftheBible said:
Oh - okay. That would be great if you worked to help refugees in Greece. When you said "spread the Gospel" I thought you meant "proselytize", which would be a horrible thing to do to refugees who have lost everything and are fleeing war. But helping them would be wonderful

Hold in a second. Why would that be a horrible thing to do?

I'm coming from a position where mission work is seeing to both physical and spiritual needs. Spreading the gospel is part and parcel. Humanitarian aid is an imperative for all Christians and so is sharing the gospel.

Hannah Bello · Dec 5, 2016

Why would it be horrible? The Gospel is Truth, all other religions are lies. All roads do not lead to Jesus. And why jump to the immediate conclusion that I'd be shoving it down their throat? The best way to show the love of Christ is through service (as Jesus did) .

Bill Hamilton · Dec 5, 2016

98% Christian? Maybe in a technical sense, but truly regenerated (born again) Christianity, no way! Greece needs the biblical gospel just like any other nation!

Bill Hamilton · Dec 5, 2016

StudentoftheBible said:
Oh - okay. That would be great if you worked to help refugees in Greece. When you said "spread the Gospel" I thought you meant "proselytize", which would be a horrible thing to do to refugees who have lost everything and are fleeing war. But helping them would be wonderful

Why would it be horrible to "proselytize?" My friend, people are dying without the gospel every day and going to hell, refugee or not! Who are we to decide who hears and when? We are called "watchmen on the wall" in Ezekiel 3 and 33, and a watchman "watches" for danger and when detected, sounds the alarm. I'd say Greek citizens and refugees are in a lot of danger in light of Rom. 6:23, wouldn't you?

Greenlee · Dec 5, 2016

StudentoftheBible said:
we do that as Christians irrespective of the other person's religious affiliation and not because we want them to convert.

I agree with this, but man, we differ on a very fundamental level on the spirit of missions.

Jesus is the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the father except through him.

So no, not all religions bear the same weight of truth and if one truly cares about the state of a person's soul, the only way to love is through presenting the truth of the gospel. This isn't a numbers game. It isn't about winning converts, it's about saving souls from eternal condemnation.

Humanitarian aid isn't some carrot on a stick that we use to get converts. Without the act of selfless and sacrificial love of joining people in their grief and doing whatever is possible to ease their suffering the gospel has little meaning to the carnal man. And to give even the appearance that the care is contingent upon conversion would be a heinous sin, however, presenting the gospel to everyone willing to hear it is paramount to fulfilling the great commission and glorifying our Heavenly Father.

Bill Hamilton · Dec 5, 2016

[staff edited]
Are you Roman Catholic? If so, that would explain some things! Haha!

Greenlee · Dec 5, 2016

StudentoftheBible said:
To Bill: My religious affiliation is irrelevant. Religious bigotry is religious bigotry. Catholics aren't excused for it; Protestants aren't excused for it; Orthodox aren't excused for it. For that matter, no one of any religious tradition - or none - are excused for being a religious bigot.

To Greenlee: You're talking about whether a religion is "true" or not and the "state of a person's soul". Not to be rude, but ... I'm sorry ... did you miss the Enlightenment back in the 18th century? We both live in the twenty-first century, we're both from the United States, I'm assuming you're a high school graduate - I honestly don't understand the superstitious take on religion. Also, according to the Bible, taking care of people *is* the gospel (check out the Epistle of James).

Well, I can forgive the condescension, but I have a hard time reconciling what you just said with your posting in a Christian-only missions section of the forum.

This isn't superstition. This is religious orthodoxy based upon a divinely inspired Bible.

Bill Hamilton · Dec 5, 2016

I asked because of your reference to the Pope in one of your comments. In one way I agree with you, but on the other hand the young lady who's planning on going to Greece as a missionary asked her question in the context of "evangelical missions." Your answers belie either a liberal Protestant, Catholic or Eastern Orthodox flavor. That's your prerogative, but don't pretend to speak for us Evangelicals. Jesus is the only way to God (John 14:6), the only mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), so anything else one might add corrupts the gospel and brings God's curse upon him (Gal. 1:8-9). What "path" we've chosen DOES matter, and I hope you are either on now or will be on the one, right path (that's not bigotry - that's Bible) someday.

Greenlee · Dec 8, 2016

StudentoftheBible said:
Well, as a Christian, I can't see how I'd not be welcome in a "Christian-only" forum (a concept which in itself is odd). And missionary activity doesn't have to be carried out on the same basis as much of it was in the 15th or 19th or 20th century. Missionaries can do a great deal of good for people in a number a places around the world - without trying to get them to convert.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding your post then. It read like you don't find the tenets of the Christian faith as categorically true. Perhaps a better understanding would be that you have a universalist theology. Either way, this is not in line with Christian orthodoxy nor does it adhere to even the most basic fundamentals of biblical theological doctrine.

Regardless, I think what you might mean by "missionaries" is in fact "humanitarian aid workers". Essentially, I find it rather difficult do do missionary work without incorporating humanitarian aid, which should be done with "no strings attached" so to speak.

As important and central to the gospel as serving "the least of these" is, I am persuaded that the state of one's eternal soul is even more important than caring for the physical needs, and I have so far dedicated my life to both of these pursuits, although admittedly I have at times placed far more emphasis on addressing physical needs of others rather than spiritual needs.

That isn't to say that I believe the physical needs outweigh the spiritual needs, though.

Mission work, at its heart, isn't Service to people but service for God. The goal
Is not to convert, but to be a light in a dark world, point to the source of that light (Jesus), and deliver the good news of salvation to whomever will accept

Greenlee · Dec 8, 2016

(Hit post reply before I was done) ... or listen. The Great Commission's command to disciple people, not help them out then leave them in a state of unforgiveness. No one is forced or duped into being born again, though.

(There, done now)

Bill Hamilton · Dec 8, 2016

StudentoftheBible said:
The Pope is the bishop of Rome - all Christians (and for that matter non-Christians) recognize that. The OP's interest in going to Greece to help refugees there just reminded me of Pope Francis' recent visit there to do just that. That visit and his truly pastoral spirit should serve as a model for those interested in going to Greece and working with refugees.

Every person is, I suppose, on a "path" in their life. I just sincerely hope that yours isn't a path of bigotry that you somehow justify because certain writers in antiquity had ideas that reasonable people today can no longer hold.

You can consider me a bigot, but I take my stand with Martin Luther. The Roman Catholic Church preaches "another gospel," and how God sees this ain't pretty (c.f., Galatians 1:8-9).

Bill Hamilton · Dec 8, 2016

StudentoftheBible said:
To Bill: My religious affiliation is irrelevant. Religious bigotry is religious bigotry. Catholics aren't excused for it; Protestants aren't excused for it; Orthodox aren't excused for it. For that matter, no one of any religious tradition - or none - are excused for being a religious bigot.

To Greenlee: You're talking about whether a religion is "true" or not and the "state of a person's soul". Not to be rude, but ... I'm sorry ... did you miss the Enlightenment back in the 18th century? We both live in the twenty-first century, we're both from the United States, I'm assuming you're a high school graduate - I honestly don't understand the superstitious take on religion. Also, according to the Bible, taking care of people *is* the gospel (check out the Epistle of James).

Actually, the gospel is summarized in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 regarding Christ's death for sin, burial and resurrection. We can only benefit by the gospel (i.e., be saved from God's righteous wrath agains sinners) when we repent of our sin and place our faith and trust in Christ alone as our Savior and Lord. Yes, James said faith without works is dead. But in order to not contradict what Paul wrote in Eph. 2:8-9, also under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16), we have to understand James to be saying that true, genuine faith must be followed by good works. If not, it's not true, genuine, saving faith. That would also fit Eph. 2:10, where Paul says we've been created for good works... after we're saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (vv. 8-9).

You call this "superstition." I call it BIBLE. You can have your shaky foundations for your conflicted beliefs; I take my stand on the Solid Rock - Jesus Christ - as revealed in the BIBLE.

Bill Hamilton · Dec 13, 2016

StudentoftheBible said:
So ... I'm guessing that little Billy, who is flagrantly violating the CF rules by suggesting that a group of Christians (Roman Catholics) are *not* in fact Christian, is the one who reported me. (Gosh ... it's been a long time since I've felt like I'm in elementary school!)

Since you apparently don't read much Lutheran theology (Knitter's Lutheran, dude) and lack a basic grasp of Christian theology in general, I'm copying here what I sent to the Moderator in response to your "flagging" my post (the quotations are from CF's rules):

*********
So ... let me get this straight.

One of the rules is, "Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed." I understand that perfectly: intra-Christian bigotry is strictly prohibited - and rightly so!

But ... extra-Christian bigotry, i.e., toward adherents of other religions is not strictly prohibited, but rather required? That's pretty hard to square with Christian morality.

I don't see anything wrong with defending the religious dignity of refugees who are literally fleeing for their lives. If one would refuse to come to the defense of this "group of people", that would not be treating them "with respect and courtesy". Allowing the bigotry that you also express in your message to me to go unchallenged would itself violate CF rules (and ... much more importantly ... the gospel).

If you are suggesting that "another Christian member" (me) is "not Christian", merely because I am not a fundamentalist, then you are in violation of the CF rules. Fundamentalist Christians (such as you appear to be) are of course and unquestionably Christian. But so are the other 90% of us Christians. These forums include members who are (Eastern and Oriental) Orthodox, (Eastern and Roman) Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and from a wide array of Reformed and Protestant traditions.

It seems that you don't understand the variety of Christian views on the issue. The shocking statement that "Christianity is the one true religion and other religions are false" may be your fundamentalist opinion, but it is not one shared by a slew of other Christians ranging from mainline liberal Protestants like the well-known theologian Paul Knitter to Roman Catholic theologians speaking as the magisterium when they formulated "Nostra aetate" at the Second Vatican Council over half a century ago. I know fundamentalists don't *agree* with these understandings - and many fundamentalists are sadly ignorant of Christian theology - but to suggest that these widespread ideas and, in the case of Vatican II, dogmatic teaching of the Church are somehow not "Christian" is absurd.

I'm not sure what "flaming" is, but it seems to me that the "flamer" is the person who would myopically suggest that a small, radical fringe defines a religious tradition instead of the broader tradition in all its complexity.

Nope, it wasn't me. I was kind of enjoying the debate! Lol!

Bill Hamilton · Dec 13, 2016

StudentoftheBible said:
So ... I'm guessing that little Billy, who is flagrantly violating the CF rules by suggesting that a group of Christians (Roman Catholics) are *not* in fact Christian, is the one who reported me. (Gosh ... it's been a long time since I've felt like I'm in elementary school!)

Since you apparently don't read much Lutheran theology (Knitter's Lutheran, dude) and lack a basic grasp of Christian theology in general, I'm copying here what I sent to the Moderator in response to your "flagging" my post (the quotations are from CF's rules):

*********
So ... let me get this straight.

One of the rules is, "Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed." I understand that perfectly: intra-Christian bigotry is strictly prohibited - and rightly so!

But ... extra-Christian bigotry, i.e., toward adherents of other religions is not strictly prohibited, but rather required? That's pretty hard to square with Christian morality.

I don't see anything wrong with defending the religious dignity of refugees who are literally fleeing for their lives. If one would refuse to come to the defense of this "group of people", that would not be treating them "with respect and courtesy". Allowing the bigotry that you also express in your message to me to go unchallenged would itself violate CF rules (and ... much more importantly ... the gospel).

If you are suggesting that "another Christian member" (me) is "not Christian", merely because I am not a fundamentalist, then you are in violation of the CF rules. Fundamentalist Christians (such as you appear to be) are of course and unquestionably Christian. But so are the other 90% of us Christians. These forums include members who are (Eastern and Oriental) Orthodox, (Eastern and Roman) Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and from a wide array of Reformed and Protestant traditions.

It seems that you don't understand the variety of Christian views on the issue. The shocking statement that "Christianity is the one true religion and other religions are false" may be your fundamentalist opinion, but it is not one shared by a slew of other Christians ranging from mainline liberal Protestants like the well-known theologian Paul Knitter to Roman Catholic theologians speaking as the magisterium when they formulated "Nostra aetate" at the Second Vatican Council over half a century ago. I know fundamentalists don't *agree* with these understandings - and many fundamentalists are sadly ignorant of Christian theology - but to suggest that these widespread ideas and, in the case of Vatican II, dogmatic teaching of the Church are somehow not "Christian" is absurd.

I'm not sure what "flaming" is, but it seems to me that the "flamer" is the person who would myopically suggest that a small, radical fringe defines a religious tradition instead of the broader tradition in all its complexity.

I am curious, however, where you found the following "rule": "Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed."

I think what's going on here is a "definition of terms" problem. You call me "Fundamentalist," and I have no problem with that label when considering its origin (to help pastors/leaders guard against the inroads of liberal theology near the beginning of the 20th century). Of course that label has come to be a "pejorative" term today, but no problem. Actually "Conservative Evangelical" would be a more accurate way to describe me. To us Evangelicals the deciding factor between someone being a true "Christian" or not is whether they have been born again, thus renouncing their sin and placing their faith and trust exclusively in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. I happen to be Baptist, but you'd most likely see those of many other "biblically-conservative" denominations saying the same thing... including Lutherans (Missouri Synod), Presbyterians (PCA, OPC, BPC, etc.), some Methodists, etc.

As for Roman Catholicism, remember the Reformation? Remember the "5 Solas?" Those five positions draw an impassible line between biblical and non-biblical soteriology. How is one saved? The RCC "adds" works and other mediators to the mix in violation of verses such as Eph. 2:8-9 and 1 Tim. 2:5. Liberal Theology takes the emphasis off "personal salvation" and puts it on "corporate salvation," essentially ignoring the preaching of the saving, biblical gospel in its assemblies. These are VERY serious differences. So no, I don't consider those of liberal denominations necessarily "Christians" in the sense of having been truly born again. And I certainly don't consider a practicing Catholic or Orthodox able to be a true Christian when other things and people get added to the soteriological mix.

Feel free to "denounce" me if you feel I am out of line. But I am just sharing where conservative (vs. "progressive") Evangelicals are coming from in the interest of defining our terms. It's what we believe. You obviously have a "Big Tent" mentality (much like the progressive "Evangelicals" out there), but we don't. Jesus said, “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." - Matt. 7:13-14

Boogaloo · Dec 23, 2017

Maybe this is a bit of a novel idea, but you could find a job in Greece, maybe a volunteer with refugees and while you do that you could minister. Then there is no need to adhere to some group but you will trust in the Lord and do His will while He takes care of you. Faith?

Missions Support

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency