Doing what we want - motives and the will of God

Why do we do what we do? Can we ever know for sure given the nature of our hearts? (Jer. 17:9) Hebrews 4 gives me hope on several levels. First God knows even the most hidden parts of me and while that is very frightening, He assures me that Jesus is a sympathetic Shepherd. He understands my dust. He gives mercy and grace when I come to Him. Mercy for my sins and failures - grace to enable me to be what He designs for my life. Second (if that wasn't enough!) He gives me His Word which can do what I can't - disclose the hidden things of my heart and help me discriminate the seemingly indivisible: my thoughts and the intentions of my heart. Finding the will of God for me was sometimes like deciding who has first pick in a sandlot baseball game. Remember? You tossed a bat and then put one grip over the other up the handle of the bat with your opponent until you got to the top. Whoever got there first prevailed. "Should I do this? Maybe its only my flesh ... but it could be the Spirit directing ... might be Satan ... only what I want ... maybe what God wants ... the devil ..." and on up the bat with my opponents in discerning my future. Then the principles of Psalm 25 and 37:4 rescued me. I don't need a bat (or a fleece!) - I have God. Because of His nature and character He leads sinners in the way! I qualify. My task is to humble myself before Him and cease striving in my own efforts and rely on Him to be Himself. Hebrews 4, relates these concepts as entering into God's rest. But here is a paradox and a provision. "Labor to enter rest" The provision: Christ in me (I Cor. 15:10 and Col. 1:29) - I can rely on Christ's life and grace in me to be all I need to be for Him and others. I'm responsible to yield and trust, He will enable me to labor by His power working mightily within me. Hebrews 4 characterizes this as "drawing near." Psalm 37:3-4 calls it: trusting, doing good, cultivating faithfulness, and delighting. And here is the promise: He will give us the desires of our heart. Read that: "Love Jesus and do what ever you want!" No danger - for if we are drawing near, He is transforming us and our desires. What a blessing, to get to the place of wanting to do God's will - no rather, God's will being that which I want to do! How gracious is God! The missionaries I know that are worth their salt, are doing what they want to do. They love what the Savior loves. I once heard a preacher speak eloquently on serving God because we love the Shepherd, not the sheep. After all, sheep are troublesome and can be very dirty and hard to deal with. His premise was right (based on John 21:15-19) and he was correct that the romance of ministry or missions and the adventure of it would not be enough to keep us faithful once the newness wore off. We need a stronger motive. Glorifying God will do. But like most propositions, even those aimed at helping, he didn't go far enough. I see these kind of missionaries too. The "glorifying God duty boys" (and gals). {They forgot the "and enjoy Him forever" part.} Looking like they've been baptized in pickle juice, they press on. "Bless God, we're doing our part for God while enduring these sheep!" They are a lovely bunch, especially to those they are enduring! No, we need missionaries who like the Apostle Paul, have come to both motives: loving the Savior and those the Savior loves. The Glory of God and Compassion for sinners drives them. The sheep for these missionaries have become very dear and they have deep affections for them (I Thes 2). And the sheep can tell.

Sending Missionaries or Money Instead?

Welcome to our first excursion into the world of blogging. I confess I had to look it up (on the web no less) to make sure I knew what I was getting into. If a blog is a personal diary, a daily pulpit, a collection of private thoughts, or memos to the world, I guess I could do that. And I would want to if perhaps these exercises might encourage those interested in extending God’s kingdom and who are willing to consider all that entails. And I am sure any comments that may come back will help me as well to clarify my thinking on these matters. As you have gathered, The Master's Mission is a mission organization – what is less obvious is that we have become a bit unique among contempary mission agencies. That’s the bad news, if you consider we are among a minority of agencies trying to be faithful to the New Testament principles of doing missions in a way that focuses on congregationalizing new believers. The trend away from what commonly used to be considered missions began in earnest about thirty years ago. Profound changes have taken place in the methods employed by both mission agencies and churches in doing global missions. One of my seminary profs warned us fledgling pastoral students that if we adopted the ‘new concepts’ in missions we would inadvertently set back the progress of global evangelism by a generation. That was 1975, and since we are not replacing the missionaries that are retiring in 2006, and since the agencies that are involved in church planting, as their number one activity, have been declining for the last several reporting editions of The Missionary Handbook (the ‘bible’ of missionary stats), I think his prophecy has unfortunately come true. The ‘new concepts’ are no longer new and are usually embraced without much scrutiny – the 10/40 Window, the homogeneous and indigenous principles, short-term trips – to name a few - I hope to address these and other issues in due time, but since this is the first blog, consider with me that there are some loud voices in the world of contemporary missions that argue that we should not even send missionaries at all. Not because they don’t want to get the gospel out or because they fear that missionaries will damage any cultures they enter. No, these are not their concerns. Their concerns center around cost effectiveness. They reason that ‘national missionaries’ who know their own language and culture are better than foreign missionaries in reaching their own people. They further reason that the money used to outfit and support the foreigner could support as many as ten or more nationals. Hence they argue, ‘the sending of cross-cultural missionaries is too expensive and the greatest obstacle hindering missions advance today.’ The solution from their prospective is to send the money overseas to national believers instead. At first blush, their arguments sound good but only if you ignore the realities of mission work. Reality: until someone brings the gospel across cultural barriers there are no ‘national missionaries’ (the term itself is an oxymoron) to spread the gospel. Reality: the number of studies conducted by nationals that have shown that nationals supported by foreign money tend to be less productive, less accountable, and are most often resented by the peers they are trying to reach. Reality: the argument breaks down when the receiving country is wealthier than the sending country. Reality: an expectation of subsidy kills the motivation of nationals to be faithful stewards in congregations that have become dependant on a missionary ‘welfare system’ from afar. Reality: nationals reaching their own is one thing (evangelism) while the attempt of an adjacent group to reach its neighbor (missions, usually involving the crossing of language and culture barriers) is usually hindered by centuries of conflict and a third party from afar is usually more effective in making the initial breakthrough. Reality: sending ‘money only’ instead of us or our sons and daughters could be a rationalization for disobedience because of our fears or our unwillingness to leave our ‘American dream.’ But even if we don’t consider these realities, God’s word is clear when it tells us to go and teach the nations all that Jesus commanded. Going personally is what Jesus and the apostles taught and did themselves. If we would be faithful to His commission, we must send out those He calls into his harvest fields regardless of the costs. That is true for all of Christ’s churches whether in America or in other lands. Missions has never been cost effective and very few of us have been financially precluded from either sending money or sending missionaries or both. Many nationals have proven themselves gifted in ministry and worthy of our support and partnership, but never as a substitute for sending our own.