The Bird & Babe Public House

We offer pithy pontifications by the pint-full, and the best brain-food this side of Blogsford. There's no cover charge, and it's all you can eat/drink (although we strongly encourage moderation). Like any other pub, we always appreciate a good tip.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

He Stayed and Worked with Them

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this...

In contemporary Church language, a "missionary" is someone sent with full (or significant) financial support to spread the Gospel in a foreign place.

I am wondering...Where did this model come from? How did we come to the conclusion that some people who share the gospel should draw their livelihood from donations of others?

First of all, pastors (as I know many of you are) deserve to gain their living from their work:
11If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?...14In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. - 1 Cor 9

Paul appeals to the idea that those who proclaim the Gospel deserve to reap from those among whom they work.

However, what I am not sure about, is the concept of "raising support" to be a missionary free from the demands of paid labor.

What is potentially wrong with giving money to someone for the sake of making disciples in a foreign place? Here are some reasons:

1. It Sets a Poor Example
Imagine the typical missionary who has full financial support and can devote 100% of their time to proclaiming the Gospel. Who can follow their example?

Now, consider someone who goes to a foreign country, works to provide for their needs, AND brings witness of Christ. This person could go to any fellow believer and truly say, "You can do exactly what I do."

Since we "pay" people to share the Gospel, I can see how non-paid missionaries can be unclear about their own role as disciple-makers. The follower of Christ who is waiting tables, doing construction, or working in an office could likely resent their job as meaningless and "in the way" of being a true disciple.

2. Everyone Must Work
We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat. - 2 Thes. 3

Labor is part of life. All disciples of Christ are responsible for sharing the Good News.

If anyone could have claimed that labor would get in the way of ministry work, Paul would have been justified. Yet, he adamantly required everyone to work, and he made himself no exception. (1 Thes 2:9)

3. Efficiency
People must be dependent on raising support before they can go. A missionary that could work to provide for their needs would be more stable in the long run.
A self-supporting missionary could also set their own schedule and would probably travel much lighter.


Paul both worked for a living and shared the Gospel to the exclusion of neither:
and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them. 4Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks - Acts 18

If Paul wasn't exempted from working (laboring and toiling) for a living, is anyone else? Are missionaries the same as pastors?

Any Thoughts?

7 Comments:

Blogger steve said...

Vijay,

Great post. Though I dont understand comment #1 (where is DrewDog when you need him), I have a couple of questions:

1. Is Paul's example prescriptive or descriptive? Does it show the rule of how all missionaries need operate or does it just show the constraints which he himself experienced.

2. What do you make of Philippians, which seems to be a fund-raising letter.

January 01, 2008 8:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Vijay,
I read your post several times and don’t understand what point you are making. Paul chose not to receive support from those he ministered to so while claiming they should support him. You are taking the quoted passages out of context. You quote from 1 Cor 9 but in context Paul says he has a right to be supported, by the church at Corinth. The passage in 2 Thessalonians relates to believers who were not working and thus sponging off of others. (cf 2 Thess 3:11). In addition, Acts 18 verse 5 says that Paul stopped working as a tent maker and devoted full time to the gospel when Silas and Timothy arrived. You should also read 3 John, where believer are given explicit instruction to support those who are taking the gospel to the gentiles.

You seem to be saying it would be better if missionaries supported themselves. A major problem with that approach is accountability. A self-supporting missionary is accountable to no one, other than God. A missionary accountable in the here and now only to himself is not good.

You assume that all pastors receive support from the church they pastor, but that is not true. Many churches do not have paid staff, sometimes because of size but also because of philosophy.

You do have a point about sending missionaries to foreign countries – it is expensive. The use of native missionaries is much more cost effective. Maybe that is your point.
Lou

January 05, 2008 1:58 PM  
Blogger Vijay Swamidass said...

Thanks for the responses, Steve and Lou.

Before I get into the details of responding, here is the background question I am considering: If I have money (resources) to give to charitable causes, do I:
A. Give it to a brother or sister who does not have food or clothing (in need)
B. Give it to support a missionary (who has food and clothing) with travel expenses, for example.

From reading the NT, I'm leaning towards option A. The instruction and example from the early church was to meet the needs of those around them - widows and orphans especially (Certainly, if a missionary is in need, others should respond, which is where I see Philippians 4)

However, I do not want to neglect the spread of the gospel either. In my post, I was questioning the modern process of raising 100% support (or close to it) before sending a missionary to their destination. To me, this is a little different than the passages mentioned, which indicate Paul has the right to material gain from the people to whom he ministered. In any case, if financially independent missionaries are the best way to spread the gospel, then giving to missionaries is as or more important than giving to the poor.

I am not sure that independent missionaries are not accountable to anyone. I am not a "missionary" - Am I accountable to no one? In my understanding, Christians are accountable to each other. Also, I'm not sure that sending a gift to someone automatically makes the receiver accountable (like a manager/employeer) to the giver.

I hope this makes sense.

January 06, 2008 12:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vijay,
You say:
From reading the NT, I'm leaning towards option A. The instruction and example from the early church was to meet the needs of those around them - widows and orphans especially (Certainly, if a missionary is in need, others should respond, which is where I see Philippians 4)

You answer your own question - the individuals do not decide on A or B, the local church does. It is the church that is to support the orphans and widows, and it is the church that sends the missionaries. So your giving should be to the local church.

As far as accountability, accountabilty implies consequenses. If a missionary receiving support breaches accountability support stops.

Another point regarding missionaries. Not all missionaries go to the field with full support. There are faith missionaries who go to the field with no support and they do not ask for support. Their faith is that God will supply their needs. Hudson Taylor was one such missionary. Sadly this concept is less accepted today in the US.

Blessings,

Lou

January 06, 2008 4:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vijay,
You say:
From reading the NT, I'm leaning towards option A. The instruction and example from the early church was to meet the needs of those around them - widows and orphans especially (Certainly, if a missionary is in need, others should respond, which is where I see Philippians 4)

You answer your own question - the individuals do not decide on A or B, the local church does. It is the church that is to support the orphans and widows, and it is the church that sends the missionaries. So your giving should be to the local church.

As far as accountability, accountabilty implies consequenses. If a missionary receiving support breaches accountability support stops.

Another point regarding missionaries. Not all missionaries go to the field with full support. There are faith missionaries who go to the field with no support and they do not ask for support. Their faith is that God will supply their needs. Hudson Taylor was one such missionary. Sadly this concept is less accepted today in the US.

Blessings,

Lou

January 06, 2008 4:08 PM  
Blogger Paul Johnson said...

Vijay, awesome post. I think that the whole 100% support mentality shows what the focus of the mission is. Another question might be: "does the success of the mission depend on the amount of support raised previous to commission?"
I do agree that as the Church (capitol C, meaning all the people of God) we are called to witness wherever we are and in whatever vocation. It is also true that churches (lowercase c denoting the gathering of the Church in specific places) usually have some sort of built-in poverty and mission fund, so then any other giving would be over and above any regular giving.

January 08, 2008 8:52 PM  
Blogger Mark "T-Hill" said...

Great post, (or to use the the older English,) a yeoman post, Vijay! You ask bold questions that many would not dare to even think.

It seems as though, your second and third point stem from your first, and your first point stems from a problem of degree. The more and more the layman Christian depends on a missionary to spread the gospel and make disciples, and thus relinquishes himself from the duty, the more the missionary stands out as the only examples of the Kingdom. So if the average Christian was less passive about being a follower of Christ the question would not arise, in my humble opinion.

God Bless,
Mark

January 23, 2008 2:30 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home