Hypothetical

[Anchor]

A missionary comes to your church seeking support.  Makes the normal presentation of his need for financial support--high percentage per capita of pagans; limited gospel outreach; few if any Gospel focused churches; people in need; potential for building self-sustaining, autonomous assemblies; etc.--and does so with a passionate unction that convinces you that his gift, and, therefore, his calling, is indeed to this area and this demographic.  He is raising support as a missionary to Monaco (or Beverly Hills for that matter)--possibly the wealthiest country in the world.

Do you support him?  Why or why not?

 

[Ransom]

I would tend, with anyone desiring to be a missionary to an exotic and affluent location, to want to scrutinize him further to be sure of his motives.

But if I take him at face value, the people of Monaco need the gospel too, don't they?

 

[Twisted]

He is raising support as a missionary to Monaco (or Beverly Hills for that matter)--possibly the wealthiest country in the world.

What does this matter except to say he will need more support to live?

 

[greypilgrim]

Western Civilization and ancient strongholds of Christendom are now the mission field.  America and Great Britain, who sent tens of thousands of missionaries to other nations, now receive missionaries from other nations.  My own church support missionaries to Germany, home of the reformation.

 

[FSSL]

He DEFINITELY needs to be seminary trained and demonstrate that he has had an effective well-rounded ministry here, first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sword]

A missionary comes to your church seeking support.  Makes the normal presentation of his need for financial support--high percentage per capita of pagans; limited gospel outreach; few if any Gospel focused churches; people in need; potential for building self-sustaining, autonomous assemblies; etc.--and does so with a passionate unction that convinces you that his gift, and, therefore, his calling, is indeed to this area and this demographic.  He is raising support as a missionary to Monaco (or Beverly Hills for that matter)--possibly the wealthiest country in the world.
Do you support him?  Why or why not?

If he is starting a church in Beverly Hills then it may make sense for some churches to support him for a short time until he can get a work started. Once he has a few members he should no longer need support. He could also work a full time job in the LA area to support himself. I am in complete support of sponsoring young pastors and their church plants on a temporary basis.

If he is going to Monaco then they will not let him work. He will need support until he can get enough members to support him and the work he is starting. Some areas of the world require much more funding to start, but they should not need that funding forever because of the average income of the nationals who become members. If he leaves the church in the hands of a national pastor he may once again need help planting a new church. Some of that support should come from previous churches he has already started and some from supporting churches in the states.

 

[Tim]

A missionary comes to your church seeking support.  Makes the normal presentation of his need for financial support--high percentage per capita of pagans; limited gospel outreach; few if any Gospel focused churches; people in need; potential for building self-sustaining, autonomous assemblies; etc.--and does so with a passionate unction that convinces you that his gift, and, therefore, his calling, is indeed to this area and this demographic.  He is raising support as a missionary to Monaco (or Beverly Hills for that matter)--possibly the wealthiest country in the world.

Do you support him?  Why or why not?

How much support is the Church going to offer? $50 per-month?

 

[Recovering IFB]

Why does it seem you have an issue with somebody going to a place that is affluent. Do you want to see the rich and wealthy die without the Savior?

 

[Anchor]

Why does it seem you have an issue with somebody going to a place that is affluent. Do you want to see the rich and wealthy die without the Savior?

Quite the jump.  However, a legitimate question for any church  on a limited missions budget (which is certainly most) is where does the missions money get spent best?  Better to fund a missionary to Bel-Air at $200K per year, or two to Lima, Peru and Buenos Aires @ $100K? Lots of lost people in all 3 places.

Biblically, we know that the poor are more likely to receive the Gospel--"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.  And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? (Matt. 19:23-25)." Certainly there is plenty more evidence (even directive?) in the Gospels to indicate that the poor[er] get precedence--"Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight...and the poor have the gospel preached to them (Matt. 11:4-5)."

It's not an agendized hypothetical, it is a practical one.  Maybe I should have expanded it and said "If you have a choice between two do you support to Beverly Hills or to one of the Balcans?"

 

[sword]

Why does it seem you have an issue with somebody going to a place that is affluent. Do you want to see the rich and wealthy die without the Savior?

Quite the jump.  However, a legitimate question for any church  on a limited missions budget (which is certainly most) is where does the missions money get spent best?  Better to fund a missionary to Bel-Air at $200K per year, or two to Lima, Peru and Buenos Aires @ $100K? Lots of lost people in all 3 places.

Biblically, we know that the poor are more likely to receive the Gospel--"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.  And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? (Matt. 19:23-25)." Certainly there is plenty more evidence (even directive?) in the Gospels to indicate that the poor[er] get precedence--"Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight...and the poor have the gospel preached to them (Matt. 11:4-5)."
It's not an agendized hypothetical, it is a practical one.  Maybe I should have expanded it and said "If you have a choice between two do you support to Beverly Hills or to one of the Balcans?"

I believe the Bible is teaching that it is more difficult, but not impossible, for wealthy people to see their need for a savior. I think God gives everyone a chance to be saved and we have an obligation as Christians to share the gospel with them.  If your church has a soul winning program or some other form of evangelism then you should focus on every demographic in your area, not just the poor.

2 Peter 3:9King The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.

Mark 16:15-16 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

1 Peter 1:8-9 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

 

[Anchor]

...
I believe the Bible is teaching that it is more difficult, but not impossible, for wealthy people to see their need for a savior. I think God gives everyone a chance to be saved and we have an obligation as Christians to share the gospel with them.  If your church has a soul winning program or some other form of evangelism then you should focus on every demographic in your area, not just the poor.

...

No issue with giving the Gospel to all.  Yet it is clear that there are demographics that bang for the gospel buck is much better.  Years ago the mission agencies of the USA and other western countries didn't send missionaries to Iron Curtain countries simply because it wasn't cost effective to raise money and train a family simply to get them killed.  Same is true for moving people around in Africa. Probably everyone on this forum knows of missionaries in the Ivory Coast; Liberia; Niger; Burkina Faso; etc., that changed fields because the cost (monetary and physical) was simply too enormous to justify trying to keep them there.  There are plenty of lost people that need the Gospel in every nation and every demographic. 

So, how do we determine that someone needs our mission bucks to become a missionary to the monetarily elite as opposed to the down and outers, 3rd world, or whatever?

 

[subllibrm]

...
I believe the Bible is teaching that it is more difficult, but not impossible, for wealthy people to see their need for a savior. I think God gives everyone a chance to be saved and we have an obligation as Christians to share the gospel with them.  If your church has a soul winning program or some other form of evangelism then you should focus on every demographic in your area, not just the poor.

...

No issue with giving the Gospel to all.  Yet it is clear that there are demographics that bang for the gospel buck is much better.  Years ago the mission agencies of the USA and other western countries didn't send missionaries to Iron Curtain countries simply because it wasn't cost effective to raise money and train a family simply to get them killed.  Same is true for moving people around in Africa. Probably everyone on this forum knows of missionaries in the Ivory Coast; Liberia; Niger; Burkina Faso; etc., that changed fields because the cost (monetary and physical) was simply too enormous to justify trying to keep them there.  There are plenty of lost people that need the Gospel in every nation and every demographic. 

So, how do we determine that someone needs our mission bucks to become a missionary to the monetarily elite as opposed to the down and outers, 3rd world, or whatever?

While there are plenty of missionaries who have been relocated for safety reasons (maybe money played into it but those are not the reports I have heard) there is also a huge movement toward "the 10/40 window" which is neither safe nor cheap.

 

[sword]

...
I believe the Bible is teaching that it is more difficult, but not impossible, for wealthy people to see their need for a savior. I think God gives everyone a chance to be saved and we have an obligation as Christians to share the gospel with them.  If your church has a soul winning program or some other form of evangelism then you should focus on every demographic in your area, not just the poor. ...

No issue with giving the Gospel to all.  Yet it is clear that there are demographics that bang for the gospel buck is much better.  Years ago the mission agencies of the USA and other western countries didn't send missionaries to Iron Curtain countries simply because it wasn't cost effective to raise money and train a family simply to get them killed.  Same is true for moving people around in Africa. Probably everyone on this forum knows of missionaries in the Ivory Coast; Liberia; Niger; Burkina Faso; etc., that changed fields because the cost (monetary and physical) was simply too enormous to justify trying to keep them there.  There are plenty of lost people that need the Gospel in every nation and every demographic. 
So, how do we determine that someone needs our mission bucks to become a missionary to the monetarily elite as opposed to the down and outers, 3rd world, or whatever?

God does not tell us to only take the Gospel to nations that meet certain criteria. He tell us, as Christians, to go ye into all the world.
Since when do we only support missionaries that present a good value. Money is not the problem, people willing to go should be the issue.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Acts 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

 

[Walt]

A missionary comes to your church seeking support.  Makes the normal presentation of his need for financial support--high percentage per capita of pagans; limited gospel outreach; few if any Gospel focused churches; people in need; potential for building self-sustaining, autonomous assemblies; etc.--and does so with a passionate unction that convinces you that his gift, and, therefore, his calling, is indeed to this area and this demographic.  He is raising support as a missionary to Monaco (or Beverly Hills for that matter)--possibly the wealthiest country in the world.
Do you support him?  Why or why not?

If he is starting a church in Beverly Hills then it may make sense for some churches to support him for a short time until he can get a work started. Once he has a few members he should no longer need support. He could also work a full time job in the LA area to support himself. I am in complete support of sponsoring young pastors and their church plants on a temporary basis.

If he is going to Monaco then they will not let him work. He will need support until he can get enough members to support him and the work he is starting. Some areas of the world require much more funding to start, but they should not need that funding forever because of the average income of the nationals who become members. If he leaves the church in the hands of a national pastor he may once again need help planting a new church. Some of that support should come from previous churches he has already started and some from supporting churches in the states.

Excellent!

 

[Walt]

Money is not the problem, people willing to go should be the issue.

I disagree here... money is usually the problem; the  average missionary today expects to be 100% supported (or thereabouts).  I have had that some sending churches insist that the sending missionary tithe on their support back to the home church, which means our missionary dollars are supporting a well-off church in the US instead of doing the work.  Some missionaries, granted, are not allowed to work in the country, and need full support.  In some countries, they could work, but prefer to be supported.  Some missionaries, unwisely (in my opinion) post on social media about all of the sight-seeing they are doing, and it sounds like they are on a paid multi-month vacation. Working people in the church may get a week or two, and some have said that they are having difficulty avoiding envy at the opportunities the missionary has.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Money is not the problem, people willing to go should be the issue.

I disagree here... money is usually the problem; the  average missionary today expects to be 100% supported (or thereabouts).  I have had that some sending churches insist that the sending missionary tithe on their support back to the home church, which means our missionary dollars are supporting a well-off church in the US instead of doing the work.  Some missionaries, granted, are not allowed to work in the country, and need full support.  In some countries, they could work, but prefer to be supported.  Some missionaries, unwisely (in my opinion) post on social media about all of the sight-seeing they are doing, and it sounds like they are on a paid multi-month vacation. Working people in the church may get a week or two, and some have said that they are having difficulty avoiding envy at the opportunities the missionary has.

It always seems to be about the money.