What are the places most in need of ministry?

[Overtime_man]

The best missionaries are native people. Instead of running off to some exotic culture, you can support a native missionary that can have instant rapport with the people because he or she lives in that community. American missionaries can hardly make an impact on the community within three years, sometimes it is 10 years or more until that American is accepted into the community. Support for an American missionary ranges from $10,000 to $50,000 per year, but most native missionaries need only $2000 or less a year to live and minister to the community. There really aren't any cultures left that need an American to go give the Good News because native people can do it better, longer, for less. Support a native missionary and do your own ministering among your own community!

I agree with you 100%. Even if we take no account at all of the financial advantages of native missionaries, it's rather obvious that in most cases they are more effective at spreading the word within their own culture than an outsider from the west could ever hope to be.

 

[ZiSunka]

Now this raises a whole new question, one that goes to the heart of what exactly a missionary should be. Is it the job of a Missionary to build up infrastructure, assist in education and generally do the type of work that numerous secular charities are actively engaged in, or should the focus of a missionary be on sharing the Good News? I personally believe that works stem from faith, and so I don't see a problem with Christian missionaries performing certain duties that fall within the secular realm. However, I think the main work of the missionary must remain with sharing the gospel. If we are going to use the first New Testament missionaries as a model, it would be hard to find any examples of Paul roaming about foreign lands, building schools and hospitals, all the while neglecting to tell people the Good News. (having said that, I must admit that I'm not at all sure that we should be using the NT model of missionaries in the modern era...times have changed, so has technology, and we need to take full advantage of that to spread the Good News.)

Jesus didn't just look at people suffering in need and tell them that he is the savior. He met their needs, then gave them the Good News. He also said that we shouldn't be like the hypocrites who tell a hungry cold person to go and be warmed and fed but do nothing to warm them and feed them.

The question isn't, "How did it get to be that missionaries build schools and hospitals," but "How did it get to be that some people began to preach the Word without building schoools and hospitals first?"

 

[Overtime_man]

Jesus didn't just look at people suffering in need and tell them that he is the savior. He met their needs, then gave them the Good News. He also said that we shouldn't be like the hypocrites who tell a hungry cold person to go and be warmed and fed but do nothing to warm them and feed them.

The question isn't, "How did it get to be that missionaries build schools and hospitals," but "How did it get to be that some people began to preach the Word without building schoools and hospitals first?"

As I said, I don't have a problem with missionaries doing secular work. The issue I raised was merely one of focus and balance. I know of several Mormon missionaries here in Japan who teach basic English conversation as their " ministry " . It's of course free of charge, and anyone can attend the lessons. This is all well and good, but the fact is that at no time before, during or after the lesson is anything said about the gospel, Jesus, or even anything vaguely Christian. (of course they can't speak Japanese, so nobody would understand anyway) But what's the point of it all? They could just as well be Muslim for all the difference it would make in their particular ministry. It's about focus and balance. Let's not make it a gospel of works alone.

 

[ZiSunka]

As I said, I don't have a problem with missionaries doing secular work. The issue I raised was merely one of focus and balance. I know of several Mormon missionaries here in Japan who teach basic English conversation as their " ministry " . It's of course free of charge, and anyone can attend the lessons. This is all well and good, but the fact is that at no time before, during or after the lesson is anything said about the gospel, Jesus, or even anything vaguely Christian. (of course they can't speak Japanese, so nobody would understand anyway) But what's the point of it all? They could just as well be Muslim for all the difference it would make in their particular ministry. It's about focus and balance. Let's not make it a gospel of works alone.

I just can't categorize health and welfare issues as "secular work." If their bodies are sick and starving, if their drinking water is unfit for human consumption, if their houses are falling apart and they are dying, they won't care a hoot about a God that doesn't care enough about them to meet their most basic needs. Only a God who cares about their bodily needs will care about their souls.

 

[Overtime_man]

I just can't categorize health and welfare issues as "secular work." If their bodies are sick and starving, if their drinking water is unfit for human consumption, if their houses are falling apart and they are dying, they won't care a hoot about a God that doesn't care enough about them to meet their most basic needs.

Sorry, but I can't agree with you on this point. Take a walk through some of the poorest slums in Mexico, and you'll find devout believers in larger numbers than you could ever come across in Beverly Hills. Money & material possessions mean nothing.

Only a God who cares about their bodily needs will care about their souls.

Again, the high percentage of believers in some of the poorest countries of Latin America would seem to dispute this. Of course we all have need of food and clean water, and believers should help those who are lacking in the essentials of this physical life. But humanity's greatest need is for the gospel.

 

[ZiSunka]

Sorry, but I can't agree with you on this point. Take a walk through some of the poorest slums in Mexico, and you'll find devout believers in larger numbers than you could ever come across in Beverly Hills. Money & material possessions mean nothing.

Who said anything about money or material possessions. Mexico City is very rich, even the poorest people, compared to the slums of Bangladesh or Recife Brazil. Those people can't even hold body and soul together, let alone find time to go listen to some preacher preach. They will listen from someone offering them help to rebuild their homes after a tsunami about a God who cares about them and loves them by sending help.

Again, the high percentage of believers in some of the poorest countries of Latin America would seem to dispute this. Of course we all have need of food and clean water, and believers should help those who are lacking in the essentials of this physical life. But humanity's greatest need is for the gospel.

Latin America is very rich compared to the poorest places on earth. Children in Guatemala get fed everyday. Children in India do not. Children in Belize get shots. Children in Seke Zimbabwe do not. Children in Costa Rica get schooling. Children in Sierra Leone don't. The children in Sierra Leone are lucky if they don't get killed before their first birthday. The children in Nigeria are lucky if they don't get aids before they are ten. Different worlds. By far, the people in Latin America are very, very wealthy.

 

[Overtime_man]

Who said anything about money or material possessions.

You did. Most people would consider a house to be a posession, essential though it may be.

Mexico City is very rich, even the poorest people, compared to the slums of Bangladesh or Recife Brazil ( snip ) ...Latin America is very rich compared to the poorest places on earth.

Brazil is in Latin America, so I don't quite follow why you've used it as an example here. Nevertheless, to assert that all children in Guatemala get fed everyday is absurd. There are children in the USA who don't get fed everyday. There are many people living in slums in Latin America who, despite the fact that they don't know where their next meal is coming from, still hold fast to the Faith. People who are tied to the social gospel movement perhaps don't want to believe that, but it is reality.

 

[Crashfreak]

Out of curiousity are either of you missionaries? I mean are you talking from experience or opinion? And let me define a missionary as a foriegn missionary, or should I say the traditional definition....just so that I don't get a reply back saying "Well how do you define missionary or whatever".

Just curious.

 

[ElElohe]

This has become an interesting conversation.

As I said, I don't have a problem with missionaries doing secular work. The issue I raised was merely one of focus and balance. I know of several Mormon missionaries here in Japan who teach basic English conversation as their " ministry " . It's of course free of charge, and anyone can attend the lessons. This is all well and good, but the fact is that at no time before, during or after the lesson is anything said about the gospel, Jesus, or even anything vaguely Christian. (of course they can't speak Japanese, so nobody would understand anyway) But what's the point of it all? They could just as well be Muslim for all the difference it would make in their particular ministry. It's about focus and balance. Let's not make it a gospel of works alone.

I concur that focus and balance are key, and different people will be gifted to do certain things on each team. Working together the results should be a balance that lends itself to a greater ministry.

The term Community Development has yet to come up as this thread has progressed. It is very difficult to pull off in many instances but far more useful and productive than a lot of relief work and handouts.

Teaching english overseas is very popular. There are some instances where it is a great in for Creative Access Nations-where getting a visa would be otherwise very hard (and getting a missionary visa would be impossible).

Teaching english is a relationally geared evangelism approach. I am all for this approach where it works (some places, other methods will likely be better), but I am concerned that some english teaching short-term trips are poorly planned and thus just bad. As well, most things relational will require more than a month to succeed, and most people aren't willing to sacrifice more than that for a short-term trip.

 

[Overtime_man]

Out of curiousity are either of you missionaries? I mean are you talking from experience or opinion? And let me define a missionary as a foriegn missionary, or should I say the traditional definition....just so that I don't get a reply back saying "Well how do you define missionary or whatever".

Just curious.

As I already stated in this thread, I feel that native missionaries are much more suited to spreading the Gospel overseas, so even though I'm a westerner living in Japan, I am not actively engaged in any missionary work myself.

 

[Overtime_man]

As well, most things relational will require more than a month to succeed, and most people aren't willing to sacrifice more than that for a short-term trip.

Yeah, I think that we both came to an agreement in the other thread that if western missionaries are going to be used overseas, firstly extensive training is necessary, and secondly, the length of the trip needs to be taken into consideration. But as you said, most people won't / can't commit to anything more than a week or two.

 

[Crashfreak]

As I already stated in this thread, I feel that native missionaries are much more suited to spreading the Gospel overseas, so even though I'm a westerner living in Japan, I am not actively engaged in any missionary work myself.

You know I actually find it difficult not to agree with you, because it sounds very convincing. But I just know it is not true. I have so many examples of people who have made such great impacts in foreign countries who were not of that country. Jim Elliot[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1](Quichua Indians)[/size][/font], Hudson Taylor(China), Rees Howells(South Africa), Doctor Paul Brand(India). And I know that there are more, I lived in South Africa as a 5th Generation South African, and my father was a missionary for most of his life in South Africa. Some may consider him not to be a native, because we are from European descent, yet he truely made an impact on many peoples lives and changed things.

God will work his way, and all you need is God to be able to work through you. Because the main concept that we are forgetting is that it is not us that doing anything, it is God who does it all. So in saying that you cannot as a foriegner make an impact in another country is just not right, because you are basically saying that God cannot make an impact in that country.

 

[Overtime_man]

You know I actually find it difficult not to agree with you, because it sounds very convincing. But I just know it is not true. I have so many examples of people who have made such great impacts in foreign countries who were not of that country. Jim Elliot[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1](Quichua Indians)[/size][/font], Hudson Taylor(China), Rees Howells(South Africa), Doctor Paul Brand(India). And I know that there are more, I lived in South Africa as a 5th Generation South African, and my father was a missionary for most of his life in South Africa. Some may consider him not to be a native, because we are from European descent, yet he truely made an impact on many peoples lives and changed things.

God will work his way, and all you need is God to be able to work through you. Because the main concept that we are forgetting is that it is not us that doing anything, it is God who does it all. So in saying that you cannot as a foriegner make an impact in another country is just not right, because you are basically saying that God cannot make an impact in that country.

Crashfreak, I'm afraid that you've misunderstood what I was saying. You're talking of absolutes, when I was talking of relative effectiveness. Many of the men you named (not all, I know) lived in a very different era. It once was absolutely necessary to send western missionaries overseas. In the case of Hudson Talyor, when he went to China, there were very few native Chinese missionaries, so if he didn't go there and spread the Good News, then who else could have done it? But times have changed. There are native believers in most areas of the world, and in my opinion when compared to westerners, they have the skills, both cultural, linguistic and otherwise, to more effectively spread the gospel in their own regions.

As for my case, again, where did I say that as I forienger I couldn't make an impact in Japan? What I said was that native missionaries, in this case Japanese, would be much more able to effectively spread the gospel than I. And as such, it makes sense for people who support missionaries to give their money to a native Japanese missionary rather than I, because for a number of reasons (mostly cultural) they are more likely than I to be effective.

By the way, there was a lengthly thread on this topic started by ElElohe, so if you have anything else to add, that thread might be a better place.

 

[Crashfreak]

Crashfreak, I'm afraid that you've misunderstood what I was saying. You're talking of absolutes, when I was talking of relative effectiveness. Many of the men you named (not all, I know) lived in a very different era. It once was absolutely necessary to send western missionaries overseas. In the case of Hudson Talyor, when he went to China, there were very few native Chinese missionaries, so if he didn't go there and spread the Good News, then who else could have done it? But times have changed. There are native believers in most areas of the world, and in my opinion when compared to westerners, they have the skills, both cultural, linguistic and otherwise, to more effectively spread the gospel in their own regions.

As for my case, again, where did I say that as I forienger I couldn't make an impact in Japan? What I said was that native missionaries, in this case Japanese, would be much more able to effectively spread the gospel than I. And as such, it makes sense for people who support missionaries to give their money to a native Japanese missionary rather than I, because for a number of reasons (mostly cultural) they are more likely than I to be effective.

By the way, there was a lengthly thread on this topic started by ElElohe, so if you have anything else to add, that thread might be a better place.

My opologies, I didn't mean to offend at all. I spoke before I thought, and I didn't clearly understand what you were saying. So for that I am sorry, I do understand what you saying now and do agree with your sentiments.

Thank you for being patient with me.

 

[Overtime_man]

My opologies, I didn't mean to offend at all. I spoke before I thought, and I didn't clearly understand what you were saying. So for that I am sorry, I do understand what you saying now and do agree with your sentiments.

Thank you for being patient with me.

No offense taken at all. God bless!

 

[the truth]

Suicides. I have heard that every 30 minutes a teen attempts suicide and every minute one is successful and it is not just with teenagers. This is another overlooked area