ate . . . the claims o f those who would draw them into service” ? Or are there other factors which contribute strongly to their questions? Is it not a hard, cold fact that materialism and a desire for security are a source of some o f these questions? Could it not be that a lack o f uncondi tional commitment to Jesus Christ and His will nurtures a good percentage of their interrogations ? In a survey given to more than 1,000 collegians during the past three months, the question was asked, “Why is there a dearth o f volunteers for the service of Jesus Christ today?” The overwhelm ing response was “ the inroads of materialism,” and “ the lack of genuine commitment to Jesus Christ.” That was the voice o f Christian youth speaking. Perhaps I do not understand the following statement from the author’s article: “ I don’t sup pose God minds the way Standard Oil runs its busi ness, and possibly He does not any more mind how a given missionary organization operates, because in terms of His real work—that is, the hidden, true, eternal work of His Spirit in the hearts of men—the missionary organization has no more claim to validity than has Standard Oil.” Mrs. Elliot would have done me, and perhaps others, a favor had she interpreted what she meant by that statement. It is my conviction that God does mind “ the way Standard Oil runs its busi ness.” There is a relationship between God’s atti tude toward a nation, a company, or an individual in respect to the ethical or unethical behavior there of. Righteousness does exalt a nation and the seeds of unrighteousness will destroy it. Furthermore, “ the hidden, true, eternal work of His Spirit in the hearts o f men” is far more closely related to the missionary organization than to the Standard Oil Company. The church is the medium through which God works. Although the church does have frailties, it is still the body through which He accomplishes His ends. Though that “ eternal work” is indeed done by the Holy Spirit, it is done in conjunction with the believer. The author’s comparison between business methods and missionary procedures is extremely interesting. She has suggested that what business calls promotion, the missionary calls “ sharing prayer requests.” What business calls progress reports, missionaries call “ prayer letters.” What business refers to as a field assignment, the mis sionary calls “ the Lord’s leading.” “ A sustained attempt,” she says, “ to apply secu lar concepts to spiritual matters and to convince ourselves that God’s work must necessarily be car ried forward by the same means as other kinds of work is leading us to destruction.” Then in one incisive indictment, she adds, “This is the mission ary task, to proclaim Christ. Though we have begun to try to sell Him, to deal in immortal souls, and have forgotten that business is a mere machine, a
thing, an idol — powerful, impressive, relentless, and dead.” Assuming for the moment that there are mis sion societies that are God-directed and God-em powered, what terminology would Mrs. Elliot sug gest should be used to describe their work? Are there no such things as “prayer letters” and “ the Lord’s leading” which are not something other than “business?” Are we always in a position to judge accurately when certain terminology is an expres sion o f real spiritual experience and when it is just business? We owe a sincere debt o f gratitude to the author of this thought-provoking article. However, we are left to cry out, “What is the answer?” Mrs. Elliot, you have opened a wound. Do you have any heal ing balm? You have pointed to the shadows, but can you not show us the sunlight? Are we really to look upon the missionary enterprise as “ a Moloch, a mighty idol to whom we are willing to sacrifice certain things?” If so, then we must de stroy it, but what is to take its place? Would a new missionary movement start with anything less than a man dedicated to Jesus Christ and to His plan of communicating the Good News to others? Would not the contagion o f that life lead others to join the ranks? Would their com bined ministries not then be enhanced by some kind of an organization which could handle details that would otherwise rob the missionary o f getting on with the job of sharing Jesus Christ with others ? The author’s call for those involved in mis sion organizations to “ return to Him” is altogether worthy. Doubtless in any such return, many “ trap pings” would fall by the wayside. But it is far from probable that the whole log would have to be cast into the fire and burned. The fulfillment of the Great Commission is not to be left to the whims and fancies of individual religious experience. There is a divine rational in the program which involves the working together of people according to Spirit-revealed principles. All effective missionary societies are repeatedly and humbly evaluating their efforts in the light of those principles. There is much, very much, in the missionary program of the church today that is Holy Spirit directed, Holy Spirit empowered, and Christ exalt ing. There are hundreds of dedicated and Spirit- filled men and women who are not serving machines or just fulfilling assignments on foreign fields. There are thousands of converts to Christ whose lives have been transformed through the Gospel preached by prayer-backed missionaries. There are dozens of mission societies to whom the program of foreign missions is a spiritual ministry and a sacred stewardship. If, to them it is big business, it is only because it is God’s business. HE
11
NOVEMBER, 1967
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs