Thank you for a good assessment of our discussion.

As to your final sentence, I am relatively confident that in the UK (perhaps all of Western Europe) there are more cases that are the exception than there are that fit your rule. Beyond Western Europe, you may well be correct — your knowledge of those fields is undoubtedly much broader than mine.

Thank you for the discussion.

I appreciate all that you’ve written and very much recognize that it is not, ultimately, my assessment of things that really matters. Where, I suppose, we are not communicating very well with each other is simply rooted in the fact that I did not supply enough caveats and qualifiers to satisfy those who would like to point out exceptions. And I can understand why, since I spoke very dogmatically and sweepingly, that would be troubling to those who see the caveats and exceptions. For the record, I do not believe that any decisions about missionary support should be made without actual examination of the specific situation. I will readily concede that my experience on mission fields, while perhaps more than many pastors, is far from extensive. I remain convinced, however, that there are far more of the situation about which I am concerned than which you offer as a counterpoint.

I agree that a long process should precede separation with those with whom we are already in fellowship. That is the right thing to do even if the participants are not enjoying the process.

And I did consider the “elephant room” connection when I used it, but your joke showed you’re not only nuanced but savvy, even though savvy and ox seem mutually exclusive.

Jon, I’ve noticed Jesus showing a certain indifference toward numbers with a greater interest toward sincerity.

My final paragraph said that you had 1) not acknowledged differences in fields of service and 2) made blanket statements. Since we’re talking about missions, #1 is rather important.

#2 refers especially to “I can think of no good reason for this to happen.” There are also references to “weak excuses” and the need to “stop supporting”. The implication was that if anyone serves for a long time in the same place without training a replacement pastor, they have weak excuses, there’s no reason for it, and they shouldn’t be supported.

This does not call anyone’s work a failure, but for the faithful man on a difficult field who labours for years and even decades without ever having the opportunity to train a pastor, without ever approaching self-supporting status, it might as well. “No good reason” is somewhat all-encompassing.

If we believe that “God gives the increase”, then we can’t really blame the servant if the Master hasn’t brought in potential pastors to train. Nor can we blame the trainer if the men they are training do not carry through. I suspect your seminary ministry makes you very aware of this. No one blames you for dropouts (though if they go to a conservative evangelical ministry, THAT’s another matter :-)).

God has greatly blessed us in our work, compared to many in this country. Just before our second year in this ministry, we were “sold” a building — for £5000. We have an American missionary attending right now who has been hindered by very serious health problems, but putting him aside, we have 4 men attending at least semi-regularly (including my son). Many American missionaries don’t have four men in their church. (Just as an aside, if you divided the men in most churches into groups of four, you would have many groups with zero potential pastors.)

We had five men. One man learned much, went to Bible school, but has decided he belongs with the Plymouth Brethren. He is still preaching. I don’t consider the time and effort invested in him wasted, but it didn’t get us any closer to a “replacement pastor”.

I’m not sure any of these men in our church are potential pastors, but that doesn’t mean we don’t apply II Timothy 2:2. They all have spent (limited) time behind the pulpit giving the Word to the congregation. They all lead in prayer publicly (that’s a big step for some men).

One year ago, I wondered if my health would force me into a work vs pastoring decision. If I had decided to try to raise support, your initial post would have made me steer clear of your church. I could not give you any confidence that our church would ever be self-supporting, or that I would have been able to train another pastor to replace me within my lifetime. I wouldn’t have had any confidence, after reading your post, that you had any understanding of ministry in Scotland.

We have all the “problems” you describe. We have a building. We support a missionary (our “Pastor’s Fund” monthly allotment is larger than our missions support, however). We look and act like an independent church as much as we can. If I died tomorrow, though, we would either need another bi-voc pastor, or one supported by other churches.

Would it be wrong for a supported pastor to come in and carry on, without any assurance of ever achieving the “success” your original post said should be happening? Or is the type of ministry I have only acceptable for bi-voc men? Having read your comment here, I think that you would not be opposed to supporting such a ministry — but your original post gave quite a different impression. “No good reason” perhaps conveys more than you wanted to convey.

Kent, thanks for the comment. A friend told me a long time ago that God made me too stubborn to ever need encouragement, but that He keeps sending me encouragement anyway. He was correct both in his assessment of my character, and of God’s goodness.

As usual, I’m probably too wordy, and I apologise for the length of this comment.

Hey, Kent, after recent controversies, I think we need to separate from the word “elephant”. At least the use of “elephant” and “room” in the same context…

But seriously, no, separation is not the only or first option in attempting to bring about change. Talk does need to come first.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I targeted people more specifically than Dave did, but isn’t that the elephant in the room, what “our” mission boards do. And I think Dave’s article was saying that we needed to do something about it. Don’t separatists separate from unscriptural practices? And that’s how we put an end to those practices, at least scripturally. On the other hand, we can just complain about them, but allow them to go on. Not saying that is all Dave is doing, but the missions affiliation should be more of a mainstream issue to people.

And Dave,

Target Don. Target me. I don’t mind getting targeted. Your article should be considered.

Hi Dave

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps we should explore the building question separately at some undefined point in the future.

As to your last paragraph, I certainly agree with those principles.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

No, I was not saying that it is the typical approach, but a still too common one. And I am not referring to debatable situations where one might legitimately defend the need to have stayed there in this way. I am not referring to hard contexts where a man chooses to serve bi-vocationally.

As for the building issue, I think you’re flattening the discussion too much–it’s not just about money. Having a permanent location and the attending obligations of it introduces changes into the nature of church life and remove flexibility. But, even the money question isn’t as simple as you suggest–ownership involves more than just rent vs. mortgage payments. I was trying to write a brief post that pointed in certain directions without elaborating every detail and while trying to be generic enough not to be accused of targeting people specifically (as Kent did).

I don’t think an exception always disproves a rule, and I was trying to focus on the rule. I am convinced that there is an apostolic pattern to be followed by missionaries: evangelism that produces disciples who are gathered into congregations, followed by the appointment of leadership that meet the biblical qualifications and serve according to biblical guidelines. It seems to me that you can tell if someone is genuinely pursuing that or not.

Kent, just a quick comment – I don’t take it that Dave is targeting anyone. I agree with the essence of his philosophy, but I’m “nuancing” it. How bout that now?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I had read Dave’s article and when I read, I thought, I agree with that. And this is how the church sent missionaries we support operate. It’s exactly what I see Doug Hammett doing in Botswana. As I read your article, I then thought, “Huh, Dave may have a big target on Don on this one.”

Out here in California, we get a lot of Pacific rim country pastors visiting immigrants, raising money for their churches in their American churches to build their buildings, or just getting support for themselves. And then some of those immigrants also move here, raise money in American churches, and go back to their beloved country fully supported by American dollars to live in a way they never could in their native country. The extra money from America also often supports other pastors, so it looks like things are really, really growing. I’ve seen this firsthand supported by fundamentalist mission boards. And I have no axe to grind there, by the way, just is what it is. I’m not connected at all with those boards, however, and this is one reason I’m glad for it.

I’ve been preaching through Luke on Wednesdays and am in chapter 13 and when I read Jon Gleason’s comment, I was thinking of the section I’m in and the thought of the purpose of the evangelism, that is, the growth of the kingdom of God. The kingdom grows like a mustard seed. Jon, what might seem like slow growth and few are saved because they won’t strive to enter the strait gate is actually contributing to kingdom growth that can’t be measured in the short term, even in one person’s, such as yours, lifetime.