We were visiting one of our supporting Churches and the sermon on Sunday happened to be on Romans 9-10. In Romans 10 is the famous missionary passage:- 14How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" (ESV). The minister told the congregation that is wasn't only "Rich and Lisa" who are missionaries but that everyone in the congregation are missionaries (to their neighbors etc) I've heard this said countless times before so it didn't think anything else of it. However, I was reading the above book this week (in the excellent chapter titled Amateurization and Professionalization) and it challenged this assertion that "we are all missionaries".
"The general call for missionary volunteers with which we are familiar in missions is often reinforced by the urgent reminder that 'we are all missionaries'. This is confusion compounded. In the first place, there is no general call for missionary volunteers in the New Testament. All New Testament missionaries were personally conscripted by Christ, his apostle and their representatives, or by Holy Spirit-directed churches.
In the second place, although all followers of Christ are called to be witnesses, it is not true that all are called to be missionaries, any more than all are called to be pastors". (p.215).
I think Hesslegrave's right. Any objections?
Posts
2 comments:
I think you and Hesselgrave are right. While I can sympathize with the motivation of saying that we are all missionaries (i.e. it is not only people flying overseas who are supposed to share the Gospel), to say that we are all missionaries makes the term missionary meaningless. I agree with the definition that goes something like, "A missionary is a Christian who crosses barriers of language and culture in order to share the Gospel, often times with people who may not have the opportunity to hear the Gospel had not someone crossed those barriers to do so." To say we are all missionaries, while well intended, has the unfortunate result of causing people to think that it is unnecessary to send missionaries (or go out as a missionary) because we are all missionaries right where we are.
Hey Rich
I disagree with you, Karl and Hesselgrave. The word "missionary" comes from the Latin "missio" which means "to send". This is linked back to the "missio Dei" which is "God's Mission". You see, God is a sending God. He sent his Son into the world to die for the sins of the world. The Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world to encourage, comfort, lead and teach and Father, Son and Holy Spirit, "send" followers into the world (remember Jesus' prayer in John) to live "missional" lives - lives which reflect the reality of God's Kingdom.
Anybody who calls themselves a "Christian" should be part of the "missio Dei" and everyone who is part of the "missio Dei" is, by implication, a "missionary". We are all called to be missionaries and we are all sent to be missionaries. Obviously not all can be cross-cultural missionaries - this requires specialist training, a certain temperament, and a particular gift set. These should be identified, set aside and sent y the local church to reach those in other cultures.
Maybe the whole issue could be simplified if we rather used another word, other than "missionary".
Post a Comment