Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chris Wynn on August 19, 2009 at 9:40pm

I think the difficulty of this question (which is a good hard one) is our own theology leaves room for some to plant and another to reap and the result positive or negative is up to God.

1 Corinthians 3:5,6 "What, after all is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe-as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow."

One the other hand, we also believe that "all men are sinners" and even the redeemed are in the process of sanctification - i.e. sin can cause them to be lazy, or cowardly, or faithless - which is a reality for any pastor or missionary or businessman. In that case, you could have a missionary not effective because of sin. And that should be confronted head on for their sake and for the church's.

So, I think a leader evaluating his field might ask the question, "Why is their no fruit after 20 years?" But then must go after the questions of heart, faith, and Spirit. It would be dangerous to only use the "Corporate Bottom Line" to evaluate work that is one part physical and one part spiritual.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Walter Seward on August 20, 2009 at 4:37am

Good question. In the case of the Quichua's in Colta area of Ecuador.
There was 20 years of planting seeds before any results were seen.
THEN a mass movement happened. Hundreds accepted Christ.
Quichas's leading their families and neighbors to Jesus.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Denlinger on August 20, 2009 at 8:32am

Interesting question.

It seems that within your question is a concept of stewardship that reflects more of a cultural understanding of stewardship as investment where there is an expectation of returns. I think Kingdom stewardship has more of the idea of managing the King's resources to advance His interests. This requires that we know/discern His interests. This question can be asked of Jeremiah. Should God have pulled Jeremiah off the field for lack of fruitfulness?

Another issue is one of missiology. If the missionary's lack of fruit is because he is overly tied to his home culture's understanding of what it means to be a Christ-follower, then the sending church and mission agency have responsibilities to confront this erroneous thinking and consequent behaviors. This question is seen in the early church. Do Gentiles need to be circumcised to become Christ-followers?

Then, the issue of the work of the Spirit. As Christ-followers, we are not responsible for the work of the Spirit; He is. Jesus said that unless a man is born of the Spirit, he cannot be born again. So, why would we hold missionaries accountable (by pulling them off the field) for that which only the Spirit can do? This question is addressed in Paul's defense of his ministry, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth."

I appreciate your question of the tensions of faithfulness, fruitfulness, and sending responsibilities. The issues are relevant for all believers, not just missionaries. Yet, who is asking your question in the realm of the church? or of us all who claim to be Christ-followers?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barry Owen on August 27, 2009 at 8:19pm

In reflecting on Jeff's point about Jeremiah, I think about the lack of an understanding, teaching or acceptance among the American church of a "call" from God to work in a distinct area or among a distinct people. This doesn't fit into our modern managerial approach to missions (or church, it seems), where we tend to give more prominence to statistics and the "bottom line" than we do subjective responses to God's leading. Probably a holdover from our skepticism of the subjective from our modernist/science-based upbringing, and antithetical to our business-based approach to missions. But if we end up doing "missions as business" we have forgotten the uniqueness we are to have as the church of God, and bought into the system our culture uses. Marty Shaw had an interesting book by Samuel Escobar that challenged the western missionary establishment's approach to missions, which, while it has some problems, should also prompt us to think deeply about the models and methods we use in missions today. I can't find it on Amazon, but you can check with Marty for the title.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barry Owen on August 27, 2009 at 7:46pm

It would be interesting to look at the historical development of various fields. Was Britain "receptive" when the first missionaries went there seventeen hundred years ago or so? I guess it didn't matter too much. The missionaries were martyred. But they kept going. What was the situation in the Philippines in the 1950's and 60's. How rapid was the growth? Yet if the missionaries had not been there reaping whatever fruit they could, however small, would there have been a church or mission ready to reap the bountiful harvest when it came in? The difference between evangelism in one's own culture and cross-cultural evangelism is that generally investments need to be made in learning the language and customs of the host culture in order to be able to minister at all. We can't wait until the harvest is ripe, anymore than a farmer can begin to sharpen his plow when the fields have already ripened. We need to prepare now, before the rush of harvest time comes. And only the Spirit know when that is. As others have said ultimately the responsibility for the result is not the Christian's, but the Spirit's.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Justin and Leah Conley on August 28, 2009 at 7:41am

Thank you all for your responses. This is certainly where I would be in the issue, that it is a call, not a wall-street investment. We have no idea what will happen or what purposes God is achieving through the missionary who is rejected (like nearly every prophet). If Jesus did not even have one person from His entire ministry stand by Him when He was on trial, I should not be surprised if I do not see any fruit for a while either (or perhaps at all in this life).

However, one thing I would like to add now in this discussion is the issue of principle that comes from moving from town to town, shaking dust off your feet to those who do not receive you and staying with a man of peace who does receive you. This, along with a couple other things are in a new discussion thread. Reply if you would like. Or continue to reply to this discussion if something has not been said that you would like to say. Thanks.

• ▶ Reply