Every Christian Is a Missionary

Rob Bell I think has a similar aversion to the title "missionary" in 'Velvet Elvis' because of the connotation of us "taking Jesus" somewhere that He isn't already...I think I agree with him that that is kinda ludicrous. He says we're more like Tour Guides pointing out to people that Jesus is already there, He's always been there. So it's not so much about us "taking the Kingdom here, there, and yonder" as it is us "revealing the Kingdom wherever we are".

Thanks for the comment, Clinton. I would, for the most part, agree. However, I think Bell's approach kind of precludes the existence of a kingdom of darkness. At least, when I read it, that was my only caution. Yes, God is present in every country, and we, like Paul on Mars Hill, should be pointing to the evidence of him even in "pagan" cultures; however, I don't think that we should overlook the fact that there are two kingdoms warring against each other, and we as Christians represent the kingdom of light. I think that it can be dangerous to overlook such a reality.

Greetings to all in that mighty name of "Jesus":
Each Christian of whom know him in the power of His resurrection...or, maybe I should say...those who are well acquainted with the fact, that He truly did come back from the dead...also appeared to His disciples.

Thomas was invited by Jesus to feel the nail prints within His hands. So, those who also have been convinced by only having His spirit to convince them, having never had the opportunity to feel the nail prints in his hands, as did Thomas: Jesus said blessed are those who have seen and then believed, but greater are the blessings that rest upon those who have never seen, but still believe.

I am a full time writer and an ordained minister. I have written three books so far. My first book: Reviving the dead church, by reminiscing the day of Pentecost. The second one is: Beyond the Golden Sunset and by the Crystal Sea. My third book: Off to visit the Prophet Elijah, on this one, the contract to publish has been completed and soon the book will be published.
Warm regards

William Dunigan
www.eloquentbooks.com/BeyondTheGoldenSunsetAndByTheCrystalSea.html -

I think it is unfortunate that someone who was apparently a missionary hates the word. I, too, was a missionary in Hungary, for 16 years - and I don't hate the word. I guess I understand what you're saying - but words have meanings - and a missionary is defined by what he does, not who he is (which is what you say you really dislike) - because we are no more special than anyone else. But, the term is no different that engineer or doctor or teacher - it refers to a vocation. If someone wants to redefine it - and then hate it - that is his prerogative, but it comes across as unnecessarily dissing a vocation of taking the gospel of Christ to the world. It would be better off to simply deal with the misconceptions that some have about what the term should mean.

Concerning "taking Jesus": Of course God is everywhere by virtue of his omnipresence - and he is at work everywhere by virtue of his sovereignty. But "taking Jesus" everywhere and "taking the gospel of Jesus" everywhere are not the same things in this sense if you want to split that hair. Paul makes it very clear in Romans 10 that the message of salvation is not known everywhere and someone has to take the message for anyone to know enough to call on the name of the Lord (and that person has been historically called a missionary).

The term "missionary" is not to be hated - and what he does is not "kinda ludicrous."

Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity

Thanks for the feedback, Dave. I appreciate it and certainly didn't intend
any offense.

What I don't like about the term missionary is that it's not biblical (I suppose one could make a case for it being connected to the word "apostle") and that it introduces a potential dichotomy between missionary Christians and regular old Christians. Please note that I have no issue with the idea of believers going to foreign lands and sharing Christ with the lost. My beef with the word is that I think that the idea of a person whose vocation is to go and share the Gospel is that it should be synonymous with
"Christian." Albeit, some can do this in different areas of the world (even the U.S.), under the auspices of various professions. I understand that there will always be evangelists, church-planters, preachers, and whatnot
that may do such work as their primary profession, and that's fine. What I'm calling into question is the idea that there are "goers" and "senders." Maybe there are really just "goers."

Thanks, Jeff. I took no offense at all - just wanted to add some balance to your thoughts, which I think were a bit reactionary against a perfectly good word.

There are a number of words we use in English that don't have a corresponding word in the biblical text - even though the concept is there. "Trinity" is one of the most cited. The point is the concept is there - and in the same way Paul was a missionary - even if the word isn't used. Timothy was a missionary for a while - and then a pastor. As you mention, pastor is vocational (and a position in the church - which does make it different) - and since we are all called to minister to one another, we could also all be called "pastors" in a generic sense.

Neither do we find the categories of systematic theology in the Bible - but they identify theological concepts that are in the text. Some might object to this - but as a Bible teacher and theologian myself I don't find their arguments particularly compelling.

We should all be teachers in a way, as well - but we read that "not many should be teachers" - so this is another example related to ability, giftedness, etc. It also brings a bit of restriction to a way of carrying out ministry. Not all who would want to teach necessarily should. At least that has been my (painful) experience over the years.

Yes, we should all be sharing Christ, but not all are gifted to the degree that they can be full-time vocational missionaries. "Missionary" is not simply a generic term - it is now a technical term as we use it. If we don't all fulfill our responsibilities to be ambassadors for Christ - that doesn't mean that we shouldn't use a technical term for those who are doing this full-time vocationally. Rather, we should deal with the issue of everyone's responsibility.

And actually, we do find that there are senders and goers as two distinct groups - see Romans 10 concerning "How shall they hear..." We also find this true of the church of Antioch that sent out Paul and Barnabas. So, the concept is legitimate biblically.

"Apostle" is first used generically to mean anyone who is "sent" - so the concept is there as well. Later it became technical term in the Greek - for the 12 disciples of Christ - even though there were at least 70 disciples of Christ who were "sent" - so this is a precedent for a word taking on a technical meaning.

So, in a general way, we all are to go - but in a technical sense there are those who "go" vocationally. The details of what each does is not necessarily the same.

I think all of this together suggests that it might be wise to tone down the language that says, "I hate the word 'missionary.'" I think that overall it might be venting misplaced frustration. Being a leader means primarily having influence on others - and we are responsible for those we influence. It is very likely that those who follow your blog will be influenced by your take on "missionary" - and pick up the idea and use it themselves - and as is almost always the case, those who follow us almost always take our stronger statements and actually take them to a greater extreme.

My kind suggestion would be that you might wish to bring some balance to what you posted - perhaps with another post. I think it would be far better to help people understand "missionary" properly - and deal with whatever misconceptions that might exist. If you don't want to use "missionary" - then those around you won't use it. Then how do you describe, address, introduce a missionary in your church. If we say we don't like the word - for many we could be understood to be saying that we don't like the concept of what most people understand their unique ministry - and then ignorantly and foolishly talk about them in completely unhelpful

As a vocational missionary myself, combined with the fact I am a Bible teacher - I want to make sure that we are communicating the right things to those who are trusting us.

In His Care,
Dave
www.biblicalintegrity.org