We would assume from the context o f these questions that Mrs. Elliot does not feel that the command o f our Lord to pray the Lord o f Harvest for laborers has anything to do with “drumming up new members for the program.” Though I object to “ drumming up” missionary candidates, yet I am left without a clue as to what her interpretation of the above-quoted Scripture is. Is she suggesting that we are only to pray? Certainly she does not believe that it is wrong to share information and facts of thé fields with pro spective servants of the Lord. Is the Spirit of God in some mysterious way to lay the burden of Malawi on the heart of a young person who has never heard of that country? Paul’s great desire to preach the Gospel in unreached areas must have been related to his knowledge o f those unreached areas. Furthermore, if we are not to take for granted that open doors “mean we ought to enter them,” then how are we to interpret open doors? Mrs. Elliot feels that “ propaganda appeals” that were meaningful to students a generation ago are now meaningless. The reason she gives is that “ today’s young people are better educated” and are, therefore, “better equipped to evaluate the nature o f the appeal or the claims of those who would draw them into service.” The author’s illustration of the Peace Corps in this regard is weak. There are plenty of reasons to believe that decisions to join the Peace Corps (worthy as it is) are often based on something less than “ concern” for others. Be that as it may, it would be ludicrous to deny that today’s youth are flooded with volumes of information which did not reach young people twenty years ago. In not a few cases this has led to frustration rather than to greater ability to evaluate. It is also a fact that young people 15 years from now will be far more knowledgeable than youth today. But does this mean that our form o f appeal must change with every generation? Is there something less relevant about Christ’s command to preach the Gospel to every creature today than 2,000 years ago? Is the logic o f the Hon. Ion Keith-Falconer relative to missions less applicable today than it was a few generations ago when he said, “While vast con tinents are shrouded in almost utter darkness and hundreds of millions suffer the horrors o f heathen ism and Islam, the burden of proof lies upon you to show that the circumstances in which God has placed you, are meant by Him to keep you out of the foreign mission field.” In the final analysis, isn’t love for God, always and in every generation, the foundation of dedica tion ? Isn’t obedience to His commands the proof of love? Is it completely honest to imply that the many questions now raised by American young people concerning “full-time service” arise wholly out of the fact that they are “ better equipped to evalu-
China, yet it is not beyond the reach of faith to believe that He who directs the drama may be pleased at any moment to open the curtains on another scene of great missionary opportunity in that land. Any expectation less than this would be unworthy of our trust in the Lord of Harvest. What shall we say of the author’s statement, “The whole missionary program o f the church has become a business. Because it is a business, it is, for Christians in twentieth-century America, an idol” ? It would be less than honest if we did not admit that there is some humbling truth within that in dictment. The tables of the money changers must be turned over, and the sellers of doves and cattle driven from the temple of missions as well as from the church in the homeland. Furthermore, we con fess that in the service of Jesus Christ here and abroad we too often become, like Martha, anxious and busy about many things to the neglect o f serv ing Christ in the Spirit. However, there is a real sense in which the service of Jesus Christ is business. Servants o f the Lord are referred to as being “workers together” with God. They are “builders,” “ farmers,” “ sol diers,” and “ ambassadors.” They have a “business” to perform and there are business principles which contribute to their efficiency in the task. The gifts of the Spirit include wisdom —that is wise advice and counsel; helps —those who are ready to serve others, and governments —that is administration, those who can co-ordinate the work of others. In all of this “business,” we are commanded not to be slothful. It is true that mission societies present the “untouched tribes” or “the wide-open doors,” and that they “ offer shorter terms and longer furloughs or even tougher assignments and greater sacri fices,” in their attempts to get recruits. But is this wrong? Apart from “ longer furloughs,” one can find precedences for all of these appeals in the book of Acts and in the ministry o f the apostle Paul. In fact, the very concepts of unreached tribes, wide-open doors, and greater sacrifices are New Testament concepts. Was there something wrong with. Paul's ex pressed desire to go to Rome, to Spain, or to preach the Gospel “ not where Christ was named?” Was it not something far more than just cold, unspirit ual business for him to send Timothy to Ephesus or Titus to Crete? Surely this was the “business” of the Spirit of missions. Now note the following well-placed questions. “Did not Jesus Himself,” says Mrs. Elliot, “ tell us to pray the Lord of the Harvest that He would send forth laborers into His harvest fields ? Doesn’t this mean, in the last analysis, getting young peo ple to be missionaries, drumming up new members for the program?”
10
THE KING'S BUSINESS
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs