"Thy Speech Betrayeth Thee"
The article in this week's issue of the Gospel Guardian bearing the above title betrays its author, Walter N. Henderson, of being ignorant of the contents of the New Testament. It contains several statements regarding New Testament practice that I am unwilling to let pass unchallenged. One erroneous statement is, "I suppose that a missionary is a man that runs a mission. Anyway I know that he is something unknown to the early church for the Bible speaks of things as small as gnats, and as large as whales, but never does it mention a 'missionary'.
The greatest preachers that ever lived carried the gospel the first time into all the world without ever learning that they were missionaries'."
The word "missionary" is surely not in the original text of the New Testament for it is an English word and the New Testament was written in Greek, but the writers of the New Testament did use a term that may be translated by "missionary". In Phil 2:25, I read, "Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Ephaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labor, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants." The word "messenger" is a translation of "apostolos" which is defined by Thayer as "a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with others." Ephaphroditus was a man sent on a mission by the church of Phillipi, and so he was a missionary. "Missionary" is defined, "A person sent on a mission." "Mission" is defined, "A sending or being sent, usually the latter; a being sent or delegated by authority, with certain powers for transacting business." These definitions are the primary definitions given in the American Universities Unabridged Dictionary. Yes, there is New Testament example for sending out missionaries.
Our brother reveals more ignorance in his attack on what he calls "a sponsoring church". He writes, "One of the modern improvements is a 'sponsoring church'. Now a 'sponsoring church' is a congregation with 'overseeing elders'—that is elders who are overseeing a work across the ocean!" He has set up his own definition of a "sponsoring church", and then proceeded to ridicule his straw man. It is true that the word "sponsor" is not in our Bible, but it is also true that there are examples of New Testament churches doing what the word signifies. One definition given in Winston's New Dictionary is, "One who endorses or stands behind a person, agitation, movement, theory, style, or the like." In Acts, chapter fifteen, we learn that the church at Jerusalem endorsed Paul and Barnabas, and the work that they had been doing among the Gentiles.
It is a common practice today for churches to send missionaries into new fields of labor. The churches commend the men, and so become their sponsors. When a new work is established, it is often thought good to ask for assistance from other churches, and so the new work is commended as being worthy of assistance. The church doing the commending is sponsor for the new work, and they have New Testament example for the practice. They do not need to apologize to anyone for their act of being a sponsor.
It may be that some missionaries, and some sponsoring churches have not always confined their activities to things authorized by the Lord. It may even be true that some missionaries have not discharged their full duty before the Lord. These things may be true, but are they not also true of located preachers, and of established churches? I am glad some good preachers have given thought to the bounds of New Testament authority in preaching in new fields, and I appreciate the criticism offered by competent men, but I resent the criticism that comes from some quarters. I am a missionary, and I am not ashamed of it. I am sponsored by the good church at Tulia, Texas, and I am not ashamed of them. I am personally acquainted with a number of missionaries in the Mid-west. 'They are men sent out by sponsoring churches. They have left good jobs with established churches to come into a new field and plant the truth of Christ. I love those men, and honor them for their work's sake. I do not like to see them made the target for the barbs and insinuations of everyone who does not happen to approve of their work, especially when the critic sits safely and quietly in an easy job with some established church. I do not mean to cast reflections on located preachers, for many of them are just as devoted to the Lord as are any of the missionaries, but just as surely as there have been lazy missionaries, just that surely there are located preachers who are at ease in Zion. It is an indisputable fact that most missionaries are paid far less in proportion to their ability and responsibility than are located preachers, and when men love the truth enough to endure hardship in order to preach it in the hard field, they ought not to be the object of unfair and unjust criticism. If a preacher is going to take it on himself to instruct the churches as to how the gospel is to be preached he ought to at least learn what the New Testament teaches before he starts. Before he starts criticizing others for their use of certain words, he ought to consult a dictionary and learn what the words mean.