I will  readily acknowledge that my opinions are primarily based on my experiences. But I have also had conversations with other pastors and I have a feeling this is a wide-spread issue in Baptist circles.

I am afraid that the ordination process in many places has become nothing more than a dumbed down, good ol’ boy, buddy system where men are ordained based on relationships they have rather than the qualifications and giftedness they possess.  I recently observed two different ordination councils for men whom I believe have been genuinely called to and gifted for ministry.  However, there was not one doctrinal question asked in either council.  They each lasted about 30 minutes and served no real purpose. There was no examination.  THIS IS TRAGIC!

Do we have such a low view of the roles and responsibilities of a pastor that we settle to simply assume someone has the correct doctrine?  Does the responsibility of preaching and teaching God’s Word not demand a complete and detailed examination?  We have lowered ordination standards and then wonder why the tenures of pastors are so short, why there is no power, why there is no impact.  Could it be that our ordination process (or lack-there-of) has placed people in ministry that have no business being there in the first place?

A weak ordination process opens the door to unqualified and uncalled men serving in positions for which they are not gifted.  I don’t have all the answers as to what an ordination process should entail,  but here are a few thoughts.

• It should include the candidate giving his salvation testimony as well as how he is growing spiritually.
• It should include a complete doctrinal examination.  The candidate should have to defend his doctrinal position, not just state it.
• It should include questioning on general Bible knowledge.
• The candidate should be required to explain the gospel as well as how to present the gospel to someone who is an unbeliever.
• It should be done only after the candidate has been discipled by someone in ministry.
• It should be done only after an individual has completed biblical training.
• It should only be done after evidence has been given of a genuine call to ministry.
• It should only be done after giftedness has been proven.

Regardless of the ordination process your church adopts, be committed to a process of ordination that is thorough, serious, and impartial.  The office in which these men desire to serve demands it.

Here are some dangers and pitfalls of supporting non-American missionaries that must be avoided.

1- There are rumored to be organizations that take advantage of the sympathy and generosity that Americans tend to demonstrate to nationals.  Some organizations do nothing but raise funds for nationals from American churches and individuals.  They bring nationals to the states as the emotional ‘trump’ card.  Some organizations keep as much as 20% of the funds raised.

2- Non-American pastors who come to the states can become spoiled by the comparative luxury we enjoy.  Many times they never want to return home.  When they do return, their perception and attitude can be negatively affected.

3- National churches can become dependent on American funds, failing to ever operate as a self-supporting church.  (This happens in all areas of missions, not just in supporting nationals.)

4- There can be lack of connection to the American church due to communication barriers.  When there is no communication, there is also limited, or no, accountability in areas of finances and doctrinal teaching.

5- How can we know if the national pastor has actually been called by God to do what he is doing?  I realize the same question can be posed for American missionaries, but at least we can contact sending churches and sending pastors to inquire about the missionary’s testimony and calling.  This is difficult, if not impossible, to do when supporting nationals.

While I think it would be beneficial for American churches to support a national church-planter, there are definite dangers that must be considered.

A Little More About What We Are Doing

I think our situation in supporting a national church-planter is as ideal as it can be.  I think we are avoiding as many of the dangers mentioned above as possible.  We are going to be supporting a national who trained with an American missionary for a number of years.  The national is moving to a different area to start a church but maintains his relationship with the American missionary. They have weekly contact about the new ministry. This provides the needed accountability.

We are supporting him for a period of 3-5 years to help in the initial expenses of getting the church started.  We are not interested in maintaining this ministry, just helping in the initial expense of establishing a church in a difficult area.  The national understands our position and is in agreement with it.

The church-planter is not asking for American help — he has no real way to do so, but he is in desperate need of it.  We are offering it to him as a way to encourage the advancement of the Gospel in a difficult area, to expose our church to missions in a unique way, and to partner with someone in a different culture for the purpose of making disciples.

I believe this is a situation that will yield benefits for both our church as well as the church-planter in Argentina.

]]> http://jeremywallace.net/2012/05/12/some-cautions-about-supporting-non-american-missionaries/feed/ 0 jeremyrwallace world-map http://jeremywallace.net/2012/05/09/why-we-should-support-non-american-missionaries/ http://jeremywallace.net/2012/05/09/why-we-should-support-non-american-missionaries/#comments Wed, 09 May 2012 18:27:40 +0000 Jeremy Wallace http://jeremywallace.net/?p=2554 ]]> One of the failures of American, Independent Baptist missions is that we have been terrible stewards with the resources God has given us.  We not only have a responsibility to do everything in way that brings glory to God and in a way that is completely in line with Scripture, we also have to be as effective as possible.  In one word this is stewardship.  Here is an idea on how we can improve missions stewardship.

I have heard many missionaries say that they have the goal of starting churches and then training nationals to carry on the ministry.  Their rationale is that the nationals will be better equipped to reach their own people than an American missionary.  This makes perfect sense.  But let’s carry that thought process a step further.  If nationals can do a better job of reaching their own people, why do American, Independent Baptist churches not support non-American missionaries/ministries?

Let’s back up one more step.  What is the purpose of missions?  Would you not agree that it is to spread the gospel to the ends of the world for the purpose of making disciples of all peoples?  If that is the goal of missions, we have a responsibility to do that in the most effective way possible.  And if nationals can do a better job of reaching their own people than American missionaries can, why not support them in addition to American missionaries?

The question is this,  “What makes it possible for nationals to do a better job of reaching their own people?”  Here a few reasons off the top of my head:

• They already know the language. Time and money does not have to be spent on this, again allowing us to be better stewards.
• They already know the culture.  They don’t have to go and study the difference between contextualization and syncretism.   They know how to contextualize the gospel.
• They already know the city in which they live. Time does not have to be spent on learning the area.
• They already understand the spiritual climate.  They were raised in it.
• They already have relationships built.

In addition to this, there are a couple of other benefits.  First, you don’t have to worry about the all-to-common problem of the American missionary starting an American church in a non-American location, thus limiting his effectiveness.  The national is starting the church, which makes transitioning that ministry to another national much easier.  Second,  many nationals do not have to spend three years and $250,000 raising support.  They are working in ministry as a ‘tent-maker’, so to speak.  American churches would simply be coming along side of them with more assistance.

I understand the challenges that are associated with a concept like this. But why not put effort into finding non-American missionaries or church planters who have doctrinal and financial accountability to partner with for short periods of time?

Let me state very clearly that I am not all suggesting that God cannot use American missionaries on the foreign field or that they are wasting their time.  I have many very good friends who are missionaries and who are doing a great job.  There will always be the need for American missionaries to go to the foreign field.  I am not suggesting that we no longer support American missionaries or that we should put all of our resources into supporting nationals.

However, I am suggesting that if we are going to improve Independent Baptist missions, we must begin to think outside the box.  We need to be open to supporting non-American, national, church planters.  This will allow us to see a greater effectiveness and be better stewards with our resources.

In October we plan to support our first non-American missionary for a period of 3-5 years.  I am excited about this opportunity.  We will be bringing a church-planter from Argentina to our church to share his burden for HIS people with whom he has lived for almost his entire life.  He speaks no English and does not look like an American…but perhaps that is what will make him effective in Argentina.

 As I have been thinking about this topic there have been some other issues that presented themselves as problems.  They are mindsets that many hold to that need to change in order for the current missions model to have a chance of changing.  Let me briefly mention them.

1- Many wrongfully think that sending missionaries means only sending American missionaries.  What if churches in the States had a specific strategy to send non-American missionaries from other countries to other countries?  I believe this would yield many more benefits than our current model.

2- Many wrongfully think that missions is what we do for our missionaries instead of what we do through our missionaries.

3- Many wrongfully think that missions in our churches is simply supporting missionaries.  There is rarely any other connection than this.

4- Many wrongfully think that missions is simply a foreign objective.  While many reference Acts 1:8, most fail to build their missions model around it.

5- Many wrongfully understand the role of the sending church as well as the mission board.  These misunderstandings prove to be a hindrance to the missionary’s effectiveness on the field.

6- Many wrongfully think that a 4-7 day missions conference is the only and best way to keep missions as a focus of the church.  I know it is not the only way, and am convinced that it is not the best way.

Over the next several weeks I will be addressing each of these misconceptions and then I will propose a new model or two.  Be sure to SHARE these articles to help spread the word.  As always, I welcome your comments and thoughts.  What are some other wrong mindsets in missions?

So what are the essential components of a church service? Here is what I think can be easily seen in Scripture.

1- The preaching and teaching of God’s Word

2- Prayer

3- The observance of the ordinances

4- The public reading of Scripture

5- Congregational singing

6- Giving

These are the 6 essential components of a church service. The problem I see is that many people and churches are abandoning the essentials of ministry while becoming more committed to other non-essential aspects. I am sure you are wondering, “What are some non-essentials of church ministry?” Let me offer a few.

1- Sunday School

2- Sunday evening service

3- Special music

4- Invitations

5- Passing the offering plate

6- Missions conferences and revival meetings

Understand that there is not necessarily anything wrong with anything on this list. However, when these are held to more strongly that the items in the essential list, it is a sign that our focus and priorities are wrong. We are wrong to judge a church based on anything other than the essential components. A church is neither biblical nor unbiblical based on whether or not they have certain non-essential components that you prefer.

So How Does This Play Out?

If a church has all of the essential components of a church service, but does not have Sunday School, or a Sunday evening service, or special music, or a traditional invitation — guess what — they can still be a 100% biblical church. On the other hand, if a church is traditional in every way – they have Sunday School, invitations, special meetings, three services a week, etc., but yet are not committed to all of the essentials, then they are not a biblical church.

As I said at our church on Sunday, “We are not here to see how contemporary we can become, nor are we here to see how traditional we can remain. We are here to see how biblical we can be.” This requires that we become fully committed to the essential components of ministry and less hung up on the non-essentials.

Those who misuse these verses usually say something like this: “We need to get back to the old ways of doing things. We need to revert back to the old-time methods and old-time standards.” Unfortunately, you have probably heard this kind of application.

There are several problems with this kind of interpretation and application. However, I will only mention the most egregious. The historical and textual context is completely ignored. The paths that are being referred to are specifically the following of the one true God instead of the many false gods. The decision to fall down and worship idols had been an obvious stumbling block to the nation of Israel. Jeremiah was encouraging them to walk in the paths of monotheism. The old paths specifically refer to the paths of the previous generations of Jews who had remained faithful to God.

An accurate interpretation of these verses deals very specifically with idolatry. Any other application is outside the authors intended meaning and thus is an abuse and misuse of Scripture. The terms “old paths” refers specifically to the paths of worshipping God instead of worshipping false gods. It refers to remaining faithful to absolute truth instead of turning your back on God’s truth. If that is that meaning; and it is, then based on these verses, we should be encouraging people to stay true to God’s Truth and to continue to worship Him. Although there may be many false gods we could be worshipping, we should remain in the “old paths” of the ancient Jews in worshipping the one true God.

Are there certain principles and standards to which we should be committed? Absolutely, but we should be committed to them because they are biblical, not because they are traditional or conservative. The standard should always be the Bible; nothing more and nothing less. Either way, these verses are not teaching on principles or standards at all. They are teaching about the need for the nation of Israel, in the Old Testament, to stay committed to serving and worshipping the one true God.

Unfortunately this happens within the Body of Christ each and every week.  Doctrinally sound pastors and Christian leaders are shot, so-to-speak, by those in their own army — by other pastors and other Christian leaders.  And while this is taking place, the real enemy sits back and laughs, free from any opposition.  In many cases we have lost sight of who the real enemy is.  We get ready…..shoot……and then aim.  We are duped into ‘sowing discord’, gossiping, and attacking others.  The whole time this is taking place, we incorrectly believe that we are fighting for the sake of Christ.  In reality, we have become a hindrance to the work of Christ.

There are several things we need to realize.

1- Satan is the real enemy, not each other.

2- Doctrinally sound pastors and churches are to be unified in fighting the enemy.  This is done by focusing on the Gospel.  Completely separating over styles of music, Bible versions, and other preferences is unnecessary and detrimental to the advancement of the Gospel.

3- As has often been said, “If you can’t say something nice (edifying) about someone, don’t say anything at all.”  This needs to be practiced.  Sure there are times when doctrinal error needs to be pointed out, but here we are talking about non-doctrinal issues.

4- Understand that we each have a responsibility to pray for each other.  Over the course of the next year our church will highlight a different church in our area each week.  We will pray that God will meet their needs, that the pastor will be strengthened and protected, that the gospel will be proclaimed, and that souls will be saved.

Let’s keep the crosshairs on the real enemy.  Get Ready…..AIM…..THEN Shoot!

Impossible, you say?  Perhaps it is impossible if you must always be in control and if you refuse to trust God.  There are times when the solution to the problem you are facing is to actively choose to do nothing to fix the problem.  There are times when patience and self-restraint are your biggest asset.  But understand that patience is not inactivity.  Patience is actively and aggressively pursuing the face of God about a situation while, at the same time, remaining active and faithful in the things you know God wants you to do. 

We instinctively want to do the opposite of that.  We want to stop everything we know God wants us to be doing and put all of our effort and resources into fixing whatever problem or situation we are facing.  Psalm 46:10 is a passage the deals with this very thing.  It says:

Be still, and know that I am God.

Contrary to popular belief this verse has nothing to do with being still and doing your devotions.  It is a command to not panic in the face of danger, difficulties, or problems.  It is a command to not take matters into your own hands, but to be still and trust God.  No matter what problem comes into your life or ministry there are times when we need to be still and trust the sovereignty of God.  In other words, don’t just do something–stand there!

1- It is a time to remember the first coming of Christ as well as a time to pray for His second coming.

2- It is a time for cleaning out distractions in your life that have taken your focus off of God.

3- It is a time to read Scripture together as a family (if you don’t already).  You can find a list of readings HERE.

4- It makes the birth of Christ more than a one day observance.

5- It is something in which the entire family can participate together.

I believe that celebrating the four weeks of Advent will go a long way in keeping Christ at the center of Christmas and teaching your children about the importance of Scripture.  As Focus on the Family states, “More than any other activity, Advent can restore Jesus to the center of the Christmas celebration, because on each Advent day the birth of Jesus is read, sung and talked about. The whole family can participate and find the observance meaningful. The props are simple and inexpensive. The memories and training will last a lifetime. Although the common tenets of observing Advent are shared by many churches, each family can add its own flavor.”

I must be honest and say that I have never celebrated Advent.  But after studying it, I believe it is a very worthwhile observance.  It is probably a little late to start the observance this year, but I would encourage you to join me and plan to celebrate Advent with your family in 2012.

You can learn more about Advent by reading the full Focus on the Family article HERE.