tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37267016.post116301815986002131..comments2007-04-05T16:30:27.530-05:00Pat Howellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00885197515267946677noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37267016.post-1163441371636778562006-11-13T12:09:00.000-06:002006-11-13T12:09:00.000-06:00Greetings Tim,<BR/><BR/>Great to hear from you and thanks for your questions.<BR/><BR/>Here is my ambition with regard to terminology. I prefer we jettison the term “missions.” I use it particularly when I am speaking to an audience unfamiliar with the usage of “International Ministries.” In other words, this is an attempt to break in a new terminology of international ministries.<BR/><BR/>Today the word missions is freighted with meaning of every kind. It applies to everything from traditional overseas work to cleaning the neighbor’s yard as a form of community service. A good thing to be sure, but is it really missions? If some form of outreach related ministry does not fit the budget anywhere else, it goes under missions.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, the old adage “Well, we are all missionaries” contributes to this unfortunate amalgamation of ministries under the rubric of missions. We are not all missionaries, or as I would say “international workers.” We are all witnesses to be sure. But international work and workers (and it is legitimate to include all cross-cultural ministry workers here) require specific training, and they encounter very particular challenges that accompany their ministry, and frankly, they often embrace hardships that are painfully unique to their work. The years required for cultural acquisition and language learning come to mind immediately.<BR/><BR/>It appears to me that the most common refrain amongst potential but soon discouraged candidates for international, cross cultural, or pioneering church planting ministry is 1) The prospect of having to raise support (sorry—Support Discovery—and lets be honest, how many of us want to do that?), and 2) learning another language and culture in order to minister in your field of service. Thus, to say that we are all missionaries is to contribute to the diminution of the church’s understanding of cross cultural and international ministry and their requirements.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps rethinking the issues will be useful in helping us to be more specific as we target areas of ministry, both locally and globally. Local evangelism and a ministry of good works are required by Scripture and essential to a local church’s health and witness in the community. But the testimony of Scripture is that the church is to take the gospel to the uttermost (last, most distant, or extreme) part of the earth. (And by the way, Short-term missions will not accomplish this great task).<BR/><BR/>Our legitimate emphases upon local and national ministry must be carefully seen in the greater context of those who have never, ever, heard the gospel in their own language—and have little or no opportunity to do so. Doing so will cause us to more carefully evaluate the strategic nature of all ministry, the competencies of those who minister, and the use of God-given resources. The embarrassment of riches that American evangelicals enjoy must be seen as a stewardship granted us by the King who gave us the great commission.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your second question regarding “home” and “foreign” missions—and it is a fair one. Both works, regardless of what they are called are essential. Again, I would simply prefer we use different nomenclature. Let us consider calling them “Local, National, International Ministries” or something more creative, or descriptive.<BR/><BR/>Undoubtedly, there are those ministering in the United States who encounter very challenging cultural issues. Working among Mormons, working in the inner city, working amongst a rural congregation in dairy country—all these require learning a new culture if you are unfamiliar with them. So, there is great validity to the notion of “missions” in this regard.<BR/><BR/>My appeal is that we really think through what we are doing, why we are doing it, how we are doing it, where we are doing it, and does it genuinely square with the specific statement of our Lord regarding the “uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)<BR/><BR/>And I would like to add two other considerations here:<BR/><BR/>1. We really need to examine the effectiveness of what we are doing. Howard Hendricks liked to say, “The church thinks it is doing so well, because it has no idea what it is doing.” I fear that when it comes to international ministries we do not do a great deal of examination—we are just happy to have something happening. But what about the stewardship of lives, resources, and responsibilities that accompany the great commission? We should be preparing the best folks in our churches to send them out—and the best leaders in our churches should be overseeing our outreach ministries—since they really are a reflection of who we are and what we are about as a church.<BR/><BR/>2. All ministry should be seen in light of the great commission. Virtually every Biblically minded pastor would agree that that the church is the focal point of ministry and that the local church is the divinely appointed means to evangelize the world. Thus, every local church should not be merely “missions minded.” Rather every local church should be “Mission Minded.” Our mission is clear—take the gospel to the uttermost part of the earth. So, every ministry in the church—from children’s through adult—all ministry in the church is to lead ultimately to the fulfillment of the church’s mission. Evangelizing the lost, teaching believers, nurturing toward spiritual maturity in both character and ministry, and each believer understanding and embracing their vital role in the mission of the church—locally and globally. I believe this is the truly Purpose Driven Church.Pat Howellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04847106673755184612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37267016.post-1163436288567462522006-11-13T10:44:00.000-06:002006-11-13T10:44:00.000-06:00Hi Pat,<BR/> <BR/>I received the news of your “blog” with interest and have a question or two regarding some of the terms you use. I wonder if you would take a moment to interact with me in regard to the following:<BR/> <BR/>On the surface, it seems as though you are making a distinction between “missions” and “international ministries.” To wit: “cause of missions and international ministries” (from your e-mail announcement) and “befuddled when it comes to missions or international ministries.” Is this an accurate perception and if so, how do you distinguish between the two? <BR/> <BR/>I’d also be interested in how the traditional terms “home missions” and “foreign missions” fit into your paradigm as they relate to “missions and international ministries”.<BR/> <BR/>Perhaps I’m the one who is befuddled!<BR/><BR/>Thanks, Pat!<BR/><BR/>Tim Jeske<BR/>Administrative Director<BR/>Midwest Church ExtensionTim Jeskehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10790975581192910030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37267016.post-1163168206919045392006-11-10T08:16:00.000-06:002006-11-10T08:16:00.000-06:00Pat,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the update regarding your family. Andrea and I have a little 5 month old now (Evelyn Marie Kolstad).<BR/><BR/>I have appreciated your willingness to move when the Lord leads you somewhere. That has been a good example to many of us fellow pilgrims.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>CalebCaleb Kolstadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16430229005942296570noreply@blogger.com