The Authority in Mission Work

The Apostle Paul, preaching in Athens

During the Pre-Association meeting of the Missionary Baptist Association of Texas, a question was raised about whether mission works which were not under the authority of a sponsoring church should be funded. The discussion was cut short, which sort of disappointed me because this is an issue that I think should be discussed, especially at a meeting where the objective is to share information and not to record votes.

If you poll 100 different ABA pastors, you will likely find 100 different philosophies and understandings about the proper way to carry out mission work. So, in the spirit of the diversity of opinions, here's mine:

In Acts 13, you have the church in Antioch that is ministering to the Lord. In verse 2, the Holy Spirit tells the church to "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them."

Two things stand out for me in this verse. (1) The Holy Spirit spoke to the church and (2) The Spirit called Barnabas and Saul.

The Holy Spirit called Barnabas and Saul to go out as missionaries. Scripture records how the Lord had placed this call on Saul (Paul) during his conversion on the Damascus road.

After the Spirit had called Barnabas and Paul to the mission work, He moved within the church to send them out.

In my opinion, this is the scriptural way mission work should be done. The Spirit calls men to a mission field, and the Spirit leads the church to send those men out. Those men are sent out with the full authority to do the work the Spirit has called them to do. If all those factors are present, I believe that we have a legitimate, and scriptural mission work.

So whether the missionary goes out and establishes a "mission," or whether he plants a "church" is really of no consequence to me. What I look at is whether He is called by the Holy Spirit, and whether His sponsoring church sent Him out.

For this reason, I have never been comfortable with "ministries" that seek to direct the overall direction of our associational missions (and by associational missions, I mean missionaries sent out by churches in our association). For this same reason, I have been leery of associational rules that establish rigid boundaries for missionary qualifications and rigid guidelines for how they do their work. And I have never been comfortable with a board calling, sending, and overseeing missionaries.

So, if you are looking for the authority in mission work, you need to look no further than the Holy Spirit. He calls missionaries, He leads missionaries, and He holds missionaries accountable, and you can find instances of all three of those in scripture.

As for the sending churches, they sent the men out, they sent them out with authority, and they support them. I believe that, just as Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch and gave an account for themselves, so ought missionaries today give an account of themselves to their sponsoring churches.

And that, my friend, is the authority in mission work.

Fighting the War on a Budget

Robert McNamara may have earned the position as the most controversial secretary of defense in U.S. history. His decisions to consolidate U.S. military bases angered congressmen and the citizens of those districts, the opposition to the war in Vietnam demonized him, and he has been widely criticized for his involvement in the acquisition of the F-4 Phantoms for the U.S. Air Force. The jets were made without machine guns, because McNamara believed the pilot could fire a missile on the enemy from 75 miles away. That would have worked, if the Sparrow didn't have an 89% failure rate in Vietnam. (The tropical conditions hindered the missile).

There are many things you can criticize about McNamara, but in some ways he was a man ahead of his time. He wanted to develop combat aircraft that could both serve as bombers and air-to-air combat jets. Though that development failed during his tenure, the military later achieved that goal with the F/A-18s and the F-16s.

McNamara made many mistakes, but his decisions were driven by a core belief that the U.S. could not afford to be wasteful when spending money on defense. He believed that the U.S. could afford whatever was necessary for national defense, but that it shouldn't just write the defense department a blank check. McNamara understood that the U.S. could bankrupt itself on defense spending, a lesson that the former Soviet Union learned the hard way in the late 1980s.

Few things will cause hurt feelings and lost fellowship quicker than financial issues. Looking at the associational mission funds of the American Baptist Association and the Missionary Baptist Association of Texas, I can tell you that financial issues are in our future. That is, unless the level of support these funds receive from the churches is greatly increased. Looking across our association at the state of our churches (not being critical, but many churches are struggling right now), the idea that more support is coming is not very realistic. Therefore, missionaries, the messengers that vote to support missionaries, their sponsoring and supporting churches will all have to make tough decisions in the years ahead.

At Mission: Brownwood, we have tried to be as cost-efficient as possible. Our biggest expenditures have been on my salary, building refurbishment and massive outreach campaigns. As time progresses, the new work will undertake more of those expenses on its own, but the work is only growing so fast despite our best efforts. None-the-less, when I look at the financial state of the MBA of Texas mission fund, I face the reality that there are not going to be many years of full salary for myself left. In fact, if something doesn't happen, the fund could be broke by 2012. At the same time, out direct support from sister churches has dropped off in the past couple of years. Two years ago, we averaged $1,800/month in direct support. In May of this year, we took in $1,200 from sister churches.

The fact of the matter is that missionaries are going to have to begin to make tough choices, because the well can run dry. We need to have a plan in place to keep our works going should that day ever come. Gone are the days when a missionary could go on salary and know that he was going to be able to draw that salary until his work organized (usually after the completion of an expensive brand new building). We're going to have to learn to purchase older church structures from protestant groups who have folded. We're going to have to learn to work out of school buildings, civic centers, and apartment community rooms. We are also going to have to learn to organize before land is purchased, buildings are built, and possibly before the pastor can draw a full-time salary from the church. We are going to have to streamline our expenses and learn to do more with less.

At the same time, it wouldn't hurt to see more support going to our associational mission programs. Over the past few years, especially when the fund balance was high (in both the Texas and national associations) men began to stand up and promote the idea of withdrawing support from these funds and directing support elsewhere. Some wanted to expend the reserves to purchase land in large cities. Others wanted to just expend it altogether. Others began to rail against our associational mission programs and call them waste of money. The discourse took its toll, and support began to erode. Now we are in a time when that support is needed, but getting the support back is always much more difficult than losing it.

There was a time when Missionary Baptists were proud of their mission programs. There was a time when having a healthy balance in the fund was a good thing, and the prayer was that more men would engage in true mission work so we could see that fund put to use. There was a time when men liked to see missionaries well-supported. Today, it seems that has all changed.

Satan is on the attack. Seminary enrollment is down, support for our associational mission programs, seminaries, mission development funds and mission efforts in general is down. Discourse on how to get new works started has been replaced with finger-pointing and back-biting. All the while, missionaries struggle on the field and supporting churches struggle back home. Let's all get back on the same page, and remember that our purpose here is to make disciples, baptize them, indoctrinate them and organize them into New Testament churches.

My pledge to you, as a missionary, is that I will do my best to streamline expenses and minimize my need. All I ask from you is that you engage in our associational mission work and help promote the Gospel in Texas, the USA, and around the world.

Why I support the proposed mission policy for the MBA of Texas

The proposed mission policy of the MBA of Texas holds superiority to the current policy in that it allows decisions to be made by sponsoring churches and missionaries without fear of interference of policy-driven debate. The proposed policy defines what a missionary is, and what state mission work is. It affirms the authority of the sponsoring church, the autonomy of local churches, yet protects the finances of the association.

Under the new policy, eligible mission work will be new church starts, work with struggling churches to prevent their demise, and works that assist churches with the Great Commission (this is where TMD, Berean Ministries, etc could qualify.) The policy allows for mission projects (such as building funds) and missionary salary.

Instead of paying salary, the mission money would be given to the sponsoring church in the form of "support" that could then be paid by the sponsoring church to the missionary as salary.

Protections for the association come in the form that the messengers are given the authority to set the amount of support to be paid to the missionary.

So far, I have only heard two complaints about the proposed mission policy.

(1) There needs to be a provision that the policy is not a set of laws, but guidelines. This article is in the current policy and introduces a lot of controversy. In my mind, the requirements of the sponsoring church and missionary in the proposed policy are minimal... if one can't live up to the expectations in the proposed policy, one has no business in missions.

(2) There needs to be more missionary accountability. Actually, I'm kind of tired of hearing about missionary accountability. All the association can really expect from the missionary is that he stay on the field and continue the work, and report on that work. What more should be expected?

Hopefully, the policy will be put up for a vote in November. If so, I'll be voting yes.

Out of the Comfort Zone

I have a book entitled "Out of the Comfort Zone" by Ray Comfort, a well renown evangelist who developed "The Way of the Master," along with the Living Waters School of Evangelism.

The cartoon on the cover of the book depicts a Christian sitting in a comfortable chair, located inside a protective bubble while death, destruction and mayhem run rampant outside the protective bubble. The more I observe the world around me, the more I feel like that cartoon is accurately portraying Christianity in America today.

My mind takes me back to a mission rally I once attended. A foreign missionary was there telling us how the pastors of the new churches planted in his country were being ambushed and killed, many times along with their family. In the same meeting, after that missionary had spoke, a local pastor proclaimed with glee that his church was finally getting new carpet.

We think of the drug culture existing in far away places like Compton, Calif., Brooklyn, the streets of San Francisco and the innercities of the major metro areas. The truth is, the drug culture has permeated every community in America and is destroying lives all around us. In East Texas, where I am from, meth can be found on virtually any country road, in almost any neighborhood, and in almost any apartment complex. It's devastating effects are easily observed in the children of drug addicted parents.

Having moved to West Central Texas, I have noticed that the problem is just as bad out here, even in towns of approximately 1,000 people or less. The devastating effects are also present here. I see people who have no hope, who are forgotten, and who have given up on themselves and their children.

Meanwhile, Christians sit idly by and dismiss the societal problems on this being the end times. We argue over who is going to be "in the Bride." We discuss the timing of the rapture, argue over church planting vs. mission work, go to war with each other over the KJV translation, and argue over contemporary vs. modern worship vs. blended. I like good discussions, and occasionally get involved in a few, but these discussions become destructive when they interfere with God's work.

The best way to reach the lost, we think, is to modernize our approach to the worship service, start a bus ministry so we can pack the place with kids, read a few books, implement some of their practices, and go multi-media with our presentations. I'm not advocating against this, but this will not reach the lost. Modern worship and modern presentation systems give the illusion of reaching the lost of a community because it drives numbers up. In reality, I fear all it does is attract younger Christians who want to be cooler than their grandparents church. This does lead to professions of faith, as the younger Christians may very well come to the knowledge that they made a false profession previously, but that is only if the modern presentation is backed up by solid scriptural preaching and teaching. The modern stuff is great, I may use it someday, but it is not the key to winning the lost and hopeless in our communities. Those who think so are remaining in the comfort zone.

If you desire to see the lost, hopeless and hurting reached with the Gospel, you have to take the Word to them. You have to go where the people are, and this does not involve a 3.5 million dollar facility with freeway frontage. It involves getting out and getting into the trenches. It involves door-knocking, apartment ministries, VBS, following up with those who the church has reached out to, even though it involves going to a house or neighborhood that is not in a good part of town. (Don't place yourself in unnecessary danger, but you can visit someone in the other side of town without harm if you are minding your business. Keep in mind, I'm using small-town Brownwood references here. I wouldn't advise going to Deep Ellum by yourself.)

The main factor in success in reaching the lost and hopeless, who are reachable, is the ability to connect with them one-on-one. If they know you care about them, they will follow... but you have to truly care. These people are street smart, and they can spot fake care a mile away.

So, let's get out of our comfort zones. Let's approve the coming changes to the mission policy that will give missionaries the freedom to work the fields. Let's get more courageous about mission work and begin sending out more missionaries (and quit using money as an excuse as to why we can't be a sending church). And let's get busy ourselves getting back into the trenches and doing battle for the Lord over the lost souls in our hometowns.