OK, thank you all for joining. Thanks for persevering through these first startup problems. For the lesson, we're going to be focusing on the aspect of financially holding the ropes for a missionary. And in doing that, we're going to look at what it looks like from the point of view of the individual church member What are the financial difficulties, temptations, and distractions that they face when financially holding the robes? Then we're going to look at the local church, the leadership, elders, deacons, and the church. What are the financial difficulties, temptations, and distractions that are faced when they and we as a church are financially holding the robes? Then we're briefly going to touch on the financial role of an association of churches and holding the ropes for missionary. And then we're going to look at what is holding the ropes look like from the point of view of the missionary. But before we do that, we want to go and kind of dig around the foundation and understand what's the background of this. We need to address the short and long-term goals of supporting a missionary, financially speaking, and how best to accomplish those financial goals. To do that, we'll look at some of the models that have been and are currently being used by missions agencies and church associations in support of missionaries and how these models sometimes affect the role of the missionary. We'll also present the models we believe, the model we believe is the most helpful and biblical. And I should say this is item number three on the outline. And we're going to look at a bit of history to understand this. We're going to look at five models. The first is the local church model. And we're going to start all the way back in the New Testament. Paul was set apart and sent out originally with Barnabas and may have initially been supported by the church at Antioch. But in his later travels, because he was a traveling evangelist or an itinerant preacher and a planter of churches, but not committed to pastoring a single church, he appears to have received support from other sources, churches and individuals. It appears he and the other apostles supported themselves when necessary. and you can see that in 1 Corinthians 4, 11, and 12, working as a tent maker at times, from Acts 18, 3. He appears to have refused support from the Corinthian church, and you see that in 1 Corinthians 12, 14, and the Thessalonian church in 1 Thessalonians 2, 9, so that he could say to them, that he was bringing the good news to them out of love for them and not for money. It's evident that he was not unconcerned about his financial situation, but he trusted God that he would meet his needs, whether through the giving of others or by working with his own hands. But it also appears that, at least initially, he did not want the burden of his financial support to fall upon the newly planted churches. So now let's look at the second historical model, which I call the association of churches. And this is the group that Pastor Jerry talked about in the introduction. what is now known as the Baptist Missionary Society, but was then called the Particular Baptist Society for the Propagation of the Gospel Amongst the Heathen. And as Jerry said, in 1793 William Carey was sent out by this society, but he was only partially supported financially by them throughout his years in India. He did support himself through various types of work, eventually founding the first degree-conferring university in India. The third model, historical model, is what I'll call cross-denomination. So in 1794, in a letter from William Carey to John Ryland, He, William Carey, urged the forming of a cross-denominational mission society where churches could work together to overcome the difficulties faced in trying to establish overseas missions. The primary difficulty being accumulating the necessary funds for support because evangelicals with the desire for missions were spread over many denominations. And so this was modeled, this cross-denominational support was modeled along the lines of the abolition movement that was funded by people in all walks of life, denominations, and classes of society. In answer to this letter in 1795, what would become known as the London Missionary Society, was formed primarily by the Congregationalists, but with participation from Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and other Protestant denominations. So now, number four in the five different support models, we're going to look at what I'm calling the denominational So across the Atlantic, now from England, in 1810, the Congregationalists in North America were faced with several seminary students from Andover Theological Seminary, among them Adoniram Judson, that had committed themselves to the cause of reaching the unconverted for Christ overseas, but had no way of supporting their desires. In response to the commitment of these men, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions was formed later that same year to coordinate the funding for their support. Now, that was a congregational board of commissioners. But in God's providence, during his voyage to India in 1812, Adoniram Judson and fellow missionary Luther Rice were each convinced independently by scripture to become Baptists and had to inform their supporters, which was the Congregational American Board, that they could not represent the denomination, but would cast themselves on the Baptist churches in America for their support. Now, at that time, there was no Baptist missions agency. So Luther Rice returned to the states and helped coordinate the formation in 1814 of what is now known as the American Baptist Missionary Union. Now Judson remained part of the mission the rest of his life and was funded the entire time by the Missionary Union. Now, during this time, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Lutherans, and the Episcopalians in the United States had their various societies for supporting missionaries formed as well. OK. Now, finally, the fifth model, and I'm going to call this the non-denominational model, Since then, since those denominational agencies and committees and societies and unions were formed, there have been a great many societies similar to the London Missionary Society formed over the years that are not even cross-denominational, but are unashamedly non-denominational, and in many cases, non-biblical. Today, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations that are extensively focused on bringing missionaries together with service opportunities and funding. But these are increasingly non-doctrinal. and focus more on counseling and social service, trying to heal the symptoms, but not the disease. We can call these agencies the modern missions model. I was going to list some of them. I mean, I went deep looking at a lot of these agencies. I was going to list some of them along with their goals and beliefs. But it turns out to be depressing rather than edifying. So take my word for it. Don't need to go there. Now, I'm sure there are more examples than these, these five different models. But the purpose of these vignettes is to present the organization and evolution. You'll hear the dog in the background. That's my daughter and son-in-law's dog. The modern model of mission support that has come down to us is almost set in stone and that has grown in scope and authority over the years. That of a missions agency that is going to be doing the following things. The identifier of lost people in specific geographies, the coordinator of opportunities for missionary service, the disseminator of requests for funding. the aggregator of the contributions from donors, the qualifier of application applicants to the mission field, the determiner of compensation, the analyzer and deployer of missions assets to each location, the disperser of funds, the monitor of expenditures, the developer of missions programs to be delivered at local churches for encouraging giving, the manager of the overall budget for all missionaries under their auspices, the manager of retirement funds for missionaries and their families, the provider of schooling for missionary children in their own countries, being the voice at home of missionaries abroad, and in general, being the overall doer of missions on behalf of the churches. Now, note that last phrase, the overall doer of missions on behalf of the churches. This is a huge departure from the way the original missionaries were sent out. The churches themselves were tremendously involved. There was no third party intermediary. So with the bureaucracy that came with the offloading and corporatizing of the management of missions also came the opportunity for men and women to look at missionary service in three new and different ways. The first way was For seminary students, the work of missions became an option, not a calling, an option for a career path detached from serving a specific church with a consistent income, chances for reassignment and growth, provision for their children's education, and a planned retirement date with retirement pay and benefits commencing when leaving the mission and returning home. Not all missionaries or mission societies operated in this way, but a great many did, and some still do. Eric Little, the famous Olympic runner, was the child of Scottish missionaries in the service of the London Missionary Society in China. And though he, Eric Little, was born in China, he was sent to England at age five and raised and educated at Eltham College, a little south of London, which was a boarding school established specifically for the sons of missionaries. That's what it says in their brochure. Founded and partially supported by the London Missionary Society. Okay, so that's one different way that people could look at serving in missions. The second different way was for pastors, another opportunity that flowed from this corporate approach was to view missions as a short-term supplemental career training assignment in order to gain some, quote, missionary experience with exciting stories to tell congregations back home. Now it should be noted that not all missionaries agreed with these developments. Adoniram Judson had this to say to the missions board in 1833 after 20 years in Burma, quote, it is with regret and consternation that we have just learned that a new missionary has come out for a limited term of years. I much fear that this will occasion a breach in our mission. How can we, who are devoted for life, cordially take to our hearts and counsels one who is a mere hireling? On this subject, all my brothers and sisters are united in sentiment. We should perhaps address a joint letter to the board, but such a measure might not appear sufficiently respectful. May I earnestly and humbly entreat the board to reconsider this matter and not follow implicitly in the wake of other societies, whether right or wrong. I have seen the beginning, middle, and end of several limited term missionaries. They are all good for nothing. Though brilliant in an English pulpit, they are incompetent to any real missionary work. They come out for a few years with the view of acquiring a stock of credit on which they may vegetate the rest of their lives in the congenial climate of their native land," end quote. Now, these are strong words from an experienced missionary 200 years ago about the potential dangers of the model of missions as a separate enterprise. Now third, a third way that mission service came to be viewed was for specific individuals without theological training, there became short-term opportunities for service that supplemented the efforts of missions in ways that, while they're helpful and beneficial, are best described as community service. from working in an orphanage to managing a food bank, and in some cases, are so close to secular work, it's hard to tell them apart, such as opportunities listed for a coffee shop manager or a construction worker on a missionary website. These things are not wrong for Christians to do. Don't get me wrong. Nor are they wrong for them to do overseas. But because they're being put forth under the mission's umbrella, they become a tempting option for someone having difficulties finding work at home or wanting to see the world with someone else funding their travel and salary. I'm sorry if this sounds cynical. I really am. But they become a drain on the funding and manpower required to qualify applicants. And by the way, what are the spiritual qualifications for a coffee shop manager? And also, it's a drain to oversee and support them in their work far from home. While the desire to go and serve the Lord in a mission setting is an honorable desire, many of these types of opportunities could and should be faithfully performed by believers in their own hometown, becoming the needed salt and light to resist the decaying culture around them. Now, once again, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not criticizing any of these missionaries or even the organizations that were formed to enable them to go and to serve in foreign lands. I am humbled by their willingness to sacrifice their comforts and their lives to obey this specific calling and thankful that the Lord raised them up and provided for them in whatever ways he chose to use at that time. Now, with all this background, particularly the modern missions model, we're going to start on item number four in the major outline. Now, you may wonder why we're being so detailed about the structure of missions organizations and what they've tried to do. You may also wonder, how does this relate to holding the ropes financially for missionaries? Well, simply put, he who pays the piper picks the tune. Now, let me explain. Just like what we'll see in the discussion below about who chooses the method and the message of missions, The mission board level decisions about which missions and missionaries receive financial support in the age of the modern missions model is not transparent and very often is carried on using unbiblical or worldly or man-centered criteria. I'm purposely going to provide a couple of quotes here so you can see this has been going on for a long time. James Henley Thornwell who was a Presbyterian minister and head of Columbia Seminary in South Carolina, had this to say in 1840. Now that's not 1940, but 1840, about the independent missions organizations and agencies, what he calls boards, and their effect on the church. Quote, it is not to be disguised that our church is becoming deplorably secular. She has degenerated from a spiritual body into a mere petty corporation. When we meet in our ecclesiastical courts, instead of attending to the spiritual interests of God's kingdom, we scarcely do anything more than examine and audit accounts and devise ways and means for raising money. He also said, quote, there is a fact connected with the influence of the boards that speaks volumes against them. A few men in the church have presumed to question the wisdom of their organization. These men are met with a universal cry of denunciation from all parts of the land. If, in their infancy, they, the boards, can thus browbeat discussion, what may we not expect from them in the maturity of manhood? And he further said, I believe the entire system of voluntary societies and ecclesiastical boards for religious purposes is fundamentally wrong. The church, as organized by her head, is competent to do all that he requires of her, end quote. OK, that's 1840. Presbyterian minister, head of Columbia Seminary. Now, fast forward 80 years later to J. Gresham Machen, who was also a Presbyterian minister and professor at Princeton and Westminster. He had this to say in 1923, okay, it's 2023, this is a hundred years ago, about providing support to a missions organization that has inconsistent and even contradictory views of the gospel message. Quote, the propagation of the gospel is clearly the joy as well as the duty of every Christian man. But how shall the gospel be propagated? The natural answer is that it shall be propagated through the agencies of the church. boards of missions, and the like. An obvious duty, therefore, rests upon the Christian man of contributing to these agencies and boards of the church. But at this point, the perplexity arises. The Christian man discovers to his consternation that the agencies of the church are propagating not only the gospels that's found in the Bible, which is good, and historic creeds, but also a type of religious teaching which is at every conceivable point the diametrical opposite of the gospel. The question naturally arises whether there is any reason for contributing to such agencies at all. of every dollar contributed to them, perhaps half goes to the support of true missionaries of the cross, while the other half goes to the support of those who are persuading men the message of the cross is unnecessary or wrong. If part of our gifts is to be used to neutralize the other part, is not contribution to mission boards rather absurd?" End quote. Now, that was 100 years ago and 180 years ago. Both of these Presbyterians were going against the majority view in their own denomination and in other denominations as well, which was to offload the doing of missions to a non-ecclesiastical body or a board, which viewed the work almost as a worldly business that was to be managed and measured with the same tools that business leaders use. And in doing so, the lack of success was often determined to be because the product was deemed to be offensive and undesirable. The solution in the corporate mindset was to reframe the gospel message being delivered by the missionary to something much more palatable to everyone, something that was originally termed broadly evangelical, that is, without denominational distinctives, but which by the time of Machen 1923, a hundred years ago, was no longer recognizable as the Christian message. It was a message that said to hearers, it doesn't matter which religion you start with or who you think God is. God loves you just as you are because sin isn't a problem. You just need teachers such as Mohammed and Confucius and all the others, including Jesus, to show you how to live. As Machen said, this is no longer the Christian message. So why has this approach prospered and continued? Well, for many churched people, the sense of obligation to pool their money with a lot of other people so that with the combined resources, missions will be well-funded and therefore effective the equation is money equals success, without concern for what is taught and preached, that is a very strong temptation. But we must ask ourselves, what kind of church do we believe should be planted? And if we truly believe the content of the message means the difference between eternal life and eternal misery and death for those being reached by the church, then we must be willing to only support financially those that we believe will bring the biblical good news. So let's explore. I mean, I know I'm hitting you with a lot of things to think about. So we'll get to the break here in a little bit and maybe have a bit to talk about it. But let's explore some of the very likely possibilities that could happen in the name of being kind and loving and doing good to unreached people without condemning their beliefs and being unnecessarily dogmatic. Do you really want to contribute to planting a health and wealth church that is pastored by a homosexual and meets in what looks like a nightclub with table service during the sermon that never mentioned sin or Jesus, but is focused on meeting felt needs? Or how about a syncretistic church that combines local superstitions with body mutilation. After all, circumcision is in the Bible and still believes in animal sacrifice. Or possibly a charismatic church pastored by a lesbian that receives new revelation every week. as they chant choruses in unknown tongues that direct the congregation's financial and political activities. Or how about a church that doesn't use the Bible at all, but is able to communicate in street lingo, and teaches that abortion is okay, and that marriage is unnecessary and patriarchal, and that sexual relations between unmarried, even transgender unmarried, is just gonna happen, so don't make a big deal about it, because as long as we are loving toward each other, we are on the right road. Or how about a high tech church that never meets in person and has messages delivered by an artificial intelligence surrogate that contain minimal Bible references but are hip and humorous and irreverent and focus primarily on diversity, equity and inclusion. Now, Parts of every one of those are real, and they may sound like aberrations that have grown up outside the mainline denominations and large missions organizations, but the decoupling of missions from the church and the adoption of a corporate approach to the management of the work, along with the decay in cultural thought due to scientific naturalism, relativism, and postmodern self-centeredness, And the embrace of liberalism in the churches has led over the last 100 plus years to a radical departure from historic Christianity. And many times it was the denominations that departed first. So here are some other examples of how missions organizations shape the missionary and the mission. get a drink of water. Some agencies, missions agencies, as part of their qualification process, require their missionaries to agree beforehand to adhere to a particular methodology when they are deployed. This can mean detailing everything from how and where to present the message, now more on the message in a minute, to how and where and when to establish a church, and more importantly, what is considered a church by each missions agency. and who can and should be elders, leaders, pastors, and evangelists, and what their qualifications must be. Now, we agree with the need for guidelines and qualifications, but in a non-denominational corporate entity, who determines those standards? If it is a non-denominational board that is looking primarily for energetic, compassionate, and loving people that can operate a latte machine and recite the four spiritual laws, then that will not produce biblical disciples or a biblical church. Now, regarding the message, this encompasses a lot of areas, from the basics of whether the Bible is true, whether Jesus is God, whether man has fallen, whether there is a day of judgment, all the way to whether the Bible allows for women pastors and deacons, whether speaking in tongues is still a gift today, and what is the stance on homosexuality and all the issues that surround that. all of which are up for grabs in mainline denominations as well. From a biblical point of view, none of these are incidental issues that can be ignored or deemed non-essential in order to fit under a, quote, broadly evangelical umbrella. And if a non-denominational board is charged with reaching more people The good news about payment for sin and reconciliation with God may instead become good news about getting out from under a patriarchal system that has damaged innocent young people for decades and is only now allowing them to joyfully express their true gender identity without fear of consequences. Another key consideration for each of these agency is, what is the role of the missionary? Is he or she to be a herald or an ambassador? Now there's a big difference there. Are they there as a herald to announce the bad news and the good news as contained in the message from their king without any changes or modifications, and then to help their hearers deal with conviction, repentance, and how to understand and live the life of faith? Is that their role? Or are they there as an ambassador, a quote, ambassador? to solve their hearer's spiritual problems by entering into negotiations with the culture they are in and adjusting the message to be more acceptable while easing their hearer's conscience by granting them absolution from sins and improving their worldly situation with physical provisions to bring their standard of living up in an effort to create a Western church. Those are two different, very different roles for a missionary. Each of these items is up for grabs in the cross-denominational and non-denominational missions agency models and are unashamedly proclaimed in much of the language of their goals, and statements of faith and guiding principles and vision and mission statements. It appears that the only real requirement is that their missionaries love Jesus, not that they must be faithful to do what he says and to do what he says, how he says to do it, but just to love him. And even if there was an effort to hold missionaries accountable with all the different views of God, man, sin, Jesus, and the church believed and taught by various denominations today, how can a cross-denominational or even worse, a non-denominational missions agency hold a missionary accountable to the type of church they plant or the kind of disciples they train? You and I know that without accountability, the tendency of every man, mission, church, or denomination is to drift further from the biblical model. So it is absolutely vital and essential, as Dr. Lloyd-Jones used to say, that these things be decided before sending a herald. As you peruse the websites of the various mission societies and even some denominational agency, the term broadly evangelical and non-denominational should cause alarm bells to ring given the heresies that have entered the church and masqueraded as Christianity over the last hundred years. Now, number five in our outline. What do we propose? Now, who am I to propose this, okay? I am not saying here is the way, the only way, et cetera, et cetera. I am just gonna give some ideas and we will talk about it more. So bear that in mind. I am not coming prescriptively or proscriptively saying this is the way to do it. None of us can look back across the history of the church and say, the church did all these things 100% right. No. We realize that with every good intention of the church, there are dozens of worldly temptations and distractions that could cause even good men to make wrong decisions. And it is the grace of the Lord and the patience and the teaching of the Holy Spirit that enables the church to acknowledge their errors and move closer to biblical truth. With all this in mind, it is with fear and trembling but with confidence in biblical principles, that we propose a different financial support model that appears to be more in line with the Bible and addresses many of the shortcomings of the previous model, but presents enormous difficulties as well. Let me reinforce that this that I'm gonna tell you assumes that a missionary and his spouse have already been or are in the process of being trained, vetted, and deemed qualified by the leadership of their local church. I know Pastor Jerry has spent a lot of time on what those qualifications are, so I won't go into them. It also assumes that the biblical model of sending two by two is being followed. meaning a team of two qualified men and their spouses. Again, Pastor Jerry has covered this, I'm sure. If not, I'm sure he will. We should acknowledge also that there is a wide spectrum of ways to serve in the role of missionary. Think of Paul's role. Like I said, he was more of a traveling evangelist and itinerant preacher versus his assistant Timothy, Or think of William Carey and Adoniram Judson. They had different approaches, different ways they were going to interact. Or even Eric Little, what was his role? It was very different from those others. Or think of our current missionaries, Sam Gunham, Matt Jensen, Brett Shaw. Each of them have a different target that they're aiming for. They're not all exactly the same. They're not doing exactly the same things. Each had or has a specific plan and a methodology for their mission that may not be exactly the same as the others, though disciple making and planting a biblical church or churches is a part of each one of them. As well, there is just as wide a spectrum of locations and cultures that require different timelines for language acquisition, assimilation, integration, evangelism, establishing a church, training elders and deacons, and then sending out their own missionaries. In addition, there are roles that don't require full pastoral qualification but aren't on the level of coffee shop managers. that ought to be considered when we speak of missionaries, all of which I'm sure Pastor Jerry has discussed in previous lectures. With that as a starting point, we can state the proposed model for financially supporting missionaries sent out by a local church. Now, again, I'm going to read it. This is not a formal declaration, but I just want you to think through it. We believe that fulfilling Jesus' command to go and make disciples of all nations requires his church to send out qualified men, missionaries, to bring the biblical gospel to those near and those far off. In order to do that, we believe the Bible provides the best pattern to follow as we seek to enable and support those who are called to go forth. We believe that the calling of a missionary is for life and that they are to become part of the culture they are engaging. understanding the language and customs so that they can relate the good news and the thought patterns of their hearers. We believe their goal should be to plant a confessional reform Baptist church or to join themselves to a doctrinally sound biblical reform church, if one exists, with the goal of helping seekers to become disciples, disciples to become teachers teachers to become leaders, leaders to become pastors, and pastors, if called, to become missionaries supported by that local church. We believe that the financial goal of a missionary should be to become fully self-sufficient over time, either by supporting themselves in secular work, which is not ideal, or by serving as a pastor in an existing church or even better by serving as the pastor in the church that he is planning, we believe that this is biblical and necessary. not only to enable the original sending church to have the funds to send out additional missionaries, but to create in the new church, the planted church, the awareness of their obligation to provide for their pastor of their church with the emphasis on their, that it becomes not a Western church, but it becomes their church. The overall level of support and the timing for this transition will vary in each circumstance, depending on economic conditions at the location, standards of living, state of the current gospel witness, et cetera, et cetera, and therefore must not be thought of as a go, no-go milestone. We believe it is the responsibility of the sending church to provide not only financial support, but prayer, spiritual oversight, and personal and doctrinal accountability for the missionary, which may continue even after financial support is ended. That's a lot to say. There's a whole lot to unpack there. But consider this as a straw man statement. I don't know if you've heard that term before, but it's a statement that's easily changed, modified, adjusted, rearranged, but at least it's a starting point for a way of thinking about sending and supporting missionaries going forward. Now, I'm going to pause and we'll take a break and we can have a few questions if we want at that time, but then we'll start back up in a minute.