All of the hoopla the past few days has brought up some interesting questions. Questions that I’ve often thought about.
I myself have often wondered if foreign missions are more valid than the mission field we all have in our own backyard. Yes, we are to go and spread the gospel all over the world. But is someone witnessing in Africa doing a more “spiritual” thing, a better work, than someone witnessing in New York City?
In light of the discussions we’ve had the past few days, I thought this article was timely and interesting.
A few excerpts, from
http://thecripplegate.com/the-new-as...ment-bankers/:
"Even with all the good that has come from this, I do have a basic concern. I’m afraid we may be misunderstanding the Gospel in all this. If we assume the disadvantaged in our inner cities (or third world countries) need the Gospel more desperately than the privileged on their boundaries, than indeed we have. For certain, it denies man’s real need and judges by externals only. After all, humanitarianism is a means to an end. The end is the proclamation of the love of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
What if a man wearing a tie entered your church along side a man in rags? Honestly now? Who would you assume needed the Gospel more? To whom would your heart go out? Our instinct here is evidence of our failure to maintain Gospel fidelity. Our hearts should go out to both. Not weeping over the businessman in the same way you do the poor man is an insult to the Gospel. To provide the homeless man with bread only is not the full extent of Christian love. Neither is assuming the man in the tie is less destitute as the man in need of bread.
The upper middle classes of the suburbs still need the Gospel. Desperately, in fact.
So, who’s going to reach the affluent with the Gospel? Who’s going to bravely venture out into the wilderness of capitalism and reach those who have been trapped by its power? Who’s going to trek out into religiously dense suburbs and assume the worst among the people who look the best? The church still needs successful businessmen and wealthy executives who can infiltrate the upper echelons of the corporate world with the good news of Christ. And investment bankers who can speak deliverance into the context of greed. We still need salesmen whose business trips look more like mission trips. The church still needs missional soccer moms."
<end excerpts>
Just because someone has no shoes and lives in a grass hut, does that make their need of God greater than the man who lives in a 3-bedroom brick home and drives a Suburban?
Thoughts?
(note – this thread is not about the Alvears in ANY way. I will not participate in any conversation that is insulting to them, and don't want this thread to be about persons or personalities, just an objective discussion of this subject)
Threaded Mode
