Have you ever heard the story of William Carey, who some consider the father of modern missions? He was a missionary to
Or what about a missionary by the name of David Brainerd? In the mid-1700’s he was a missionary to the American Indians. Brainerd was a close friend of Jonathan Edwards during the time now known as the Great Awakening. In 1746, Brainerd was part of an “awakening” among the natives. In less than a year the congregation of his native church had grown to over 130 Christian Indians.
What do these two missionaries have to do with the state of the IMB? They both would have been rejected! William Carey’s wife Dorothy did not feel called to minister in
David Brainerd on the other hand would have been rejected for a couple of other reasons. First, he was expelled from Yale for criticizing a faculty member and second, he had Tuberculosis. I’m not sure if getting expelled from college will result in rejection from the IMB, but I do know that having a life threatening illness will. By the way, Brainerd finally died from TB in the home of Jonathan Edwards at the age of 29.
These are two examples of great men of God who would have been rejected by the IMB. What does that tell us? Have we allowed it to become too influenced by secular business practices? Are we too worried about protecting our assets? Do we have as much faith as the Christians who have come before us?
My point is not so much to bash the IMB as to ask tough questions that will help us reevaluate the process of appointing missionaries. What do you think?
Posts
7 comments:
The tough part is managing an entity with accountability to 16 million theologically shallow autonomous congregationalists each with a set of inconsistent opinions as to how it should be run.
Maybe the problems are found in the SBC being afraid of the supernatural nature of the Holy Spirit and His guidance in calling people that don't necessarily fit in the mold of the IMB or the SBC.
E.g the censuring of Wade Burleson.
I would actually argue that William Carey probably shouldn't have been a missionary. Obviously, God used his efforts in an incredible way; however, that does not mean that Carey was not in sin when going.
Food for thought,
Joseph
Interesting thought, Joseph. Would you care to elaborate? Thanks for stopping by I would like to hear more.
Carey's wife was not spiritually (mentally?) prepared for a life on the mission field.
While there is disagreement on whether or not a wife must feel a special calling to the mission field before a family should go overseas, I don't think we should argue that a woman who is antagonistic towards going should go.
In the specific case of Carey's wife, all evidence indicates she wanted nothing to do with going. And I may be mistaken (I'm not sure if I am remembering this accurately or not!), but I believe her family had mental issues in previous generations. I genuinely believe Carey was so focused on the task at hand (a wonderful task!) that he lost focus on the importance of caring for his family.
All that being said, regardless of whether Carey should have gone or not, God used him in a mighty way to advance the cause of the Gospel.
Blessings,
Joseph
By the way, I think "anonymous" commenter #2 is out of line.
:)
Thanks, brother. Those are some good points. Under normal circumstances our family should be the first priority. But, maybe just maybe this was an unusual circumstance, as in God was going to use Carey to start the modern mission movement despite hardships. I couldn't imagine taking a wife that was totally antagonistic to the call of missions to a place like Burma during that time.
I agree that the comment about Wade Burleson is out of line.
Again, thanks for your comments.
Post a Comment