missionary or apostle?

Most of us are familiar with the term “missionary”; for one thing, it seems to have had some influence upon what position a man and woman should take in the act of procreation.
Beyond that we know that missionaries have had a tremendous impact upon the way that Western civilization has permeated the world.
How so? Obviously by carrying out their objectives of sharing the good news of the Messiah Jesus Christ, he of Jewish ethnicity and prophecy, who would be the savior of Jews and Gentiles alike.
But wait a minute; what does sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ have to do with the spread of Western civilization? Well, everything! That is, if you are a missionary.
Christianity is a religious belief system that was introduced in the East (the Middle East, to be more precise), spread phenomenally from there, and eventually became morphed into the large-scale and apostate enterprise that we see on display today. And along with the apostate church, the frequency of the term “missionary” has evolved from the tiny mustard seed of being used on just one occasion in my New Testament into a spectacular plant so large that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR CAN NEST UNDER ITS SHADE.
So what is meant in that single incidence of the Bible where the term “missionary” is used? In that case it was Paul, the author of so many of the letters featured in the New Testament. He was speaking in terms of his mission as an activist of the Christian faith.
Paul propounded on the historical Jesus Christ, he appealed to men to pray and seek Christ’s pardon and intervention in their lives, and he apparently did his utmost to spontaneously obey the promptings of the risen Christ, now revealed in the invisible yet metaphysically-revealed Holy Spirit. Paul also served as an enforcer of the pure doctrine of Christian belief, but it is my opinion that no one on this side of life really knows how pure Paul’s doctrine actually was.
Anyway, that was what Paul (who called himself a “missionary” just once in my Bible) did. We usually refer to Paul, as he himself commonly does, as an “apostle”, which is summed up mainly with the same job description that we just saw in the last paragraph. “Apostle” is much like “ambassador”, or someone who represents a ruler in that particular role or place where the ruler is not bodily present.
Most of us are familiar with “ambassador”, but “apostle” is a term we generally reserve for a senior official in a major Christian denomination, a top-ranking religious guy.
Back to the missionary/Western civilization topic, my premise (along with many others, I might add) is that the term “missionary” as a vocational career in the Christian faith is actually quite inaccurate and quite deserving of the scrutiny it receives from those outside of Christianity. Historically speaking, the missionaries, as many cultures know, were the first wave of outsiders to penetrate new frontiers, preaching and practicing logic, peace, and compassion, followed closely by a second wave of men, men of a different ilk, who subjugated and exploited the natives, many times in collusion with the most despicable and ruthless criminals of the land.
So goes the story of the advance of Western civilization, and while every civilization certainly holds its own shameful acts of belligerence and inscrutability, the West doesn’t seem to take a back seat to anybody in regards to the trade-off of benevolence for power.
So then, what’s the difference between a “missionary” and an “apostle”? I think the distinction has become important in our modern times, and therefore I propose this list that features characteristics that help identify each, and distinguish them from one other:

Primary Job Description: Missionary – Serves his organization, protects his organization’s doctrine, and seeks his organization’s approval. Apostle – Abducted by God because he sees the futility of managing his own life, he serves in submission to Christ.
Career Objectives: Missionary – Make a good name for yourself as a minister of the gospel, acquire many notches on your bible for the number of people you have had a part in getting saved, write a newsletter that makes people laugh and cry at the same time. Apostle – When God is into something, then I must be, too; who or what do I have in heaven and earth besides you, O Lord?
Career Outlook: Missionary – It’s a decent job if you have the stomach for it. Apostle – The heart of every matter is God’s will.

Mahatma Gandhi wrote: "I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians.”
The impact of a Christian’s life upon those around him depends largely upon whether he is conducting himself as a missionary or as an apostle.

When Trust is Broken

Trust is an empowering dynamic to relationships and organizations. Trusting people commit wholeheartedly to a person or a cause. Trusting people easily cast off the shackles of worry, doubt, and cynicism because they envision a secure bond or a projected outcome ahead.
Conversely, lost trust is lost power. Suspicion and doubt are as leaks from the combustion chamber, bleeding potential power to unspecified, unwarranted places.
Perhaps you have heard the adage: “double-cross me once. . . your fault; double-cross me again. . . my fault.” Only the fool allows trust to be repeatedly betrayed; only the sick-minded will make a supreme commitment to someone or something that he doesn’t entirely trust.
This is why so many of us live in the doldrums. When trust has been broken, we live in perpetual despair; as human beings we are so inclined to give our hearts away to a person or cause, and yet we harbor so many suspicions of trustworthiness. We can no longer give our hearts wholeheartedly. Life loses its savor.
If these views seem too secular, if the obvious being stated doesn’t match up with the ideal of God’s justice and sovereignty over all things, I’ll honor that. We are warned not to trust even ourselves, after all, but finally to trust God.
Since Jesus told his listeners to turn the other cheek, to walk the second mile, to give the shirt off of your back, it appears that a guarded mindset or suspicious nature clashes with the will of Christ.
Then are we really expected to continue with those who have somehow betrayed us? The answer, it appears, is “yes”. Jesus did so, and to date I have not found any convincing evidence that he later rescinded or somehow qualified this idea.
But, as this stream of thought progresses, is everything as it should be because we have placed our trust in God? I find that question a lot more difficult to answer. We are admonished to be fools for Christ, yet I would argue that the responsible person finally accepts responsibility for involvements with the unreliable person, the wolf in sheep’s clothing, or the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.
A friend once made the off-hand remark, “People are going to end up letting you down, no matter what.” Yes, no matter what; and then. . . what?
I think we have to begin with trusting God again; perhaps that was the very place where trust was first broken.
If we can get to that place of confessing and accepting “the lines have fallen to me in pleasant places” (Ps. 16), then we stand a better chance of being able to face anyone we feel has betrayed us. This is not the goal, mind you; it is only a possibility.
We still reserve the right to tell our double-crossers that their character is in question; Jesus did so, and so might we. We may also continue to keep double-crossers a ten-foot pole distance from our lives. After all we are not commanded to chum-up. We are only expected to submit our heart attitudes to the custodial care of the Holy Spirit, and if this leads us to reconciliation, so be it.
Either way lost trust is lost power. It is an enormous setback for any person or organization. Once trust is lost, it is a very slow and difficult procedure to patch or seal the leak. It may never be fully repaired. If we care at all about our lives, we would do well to maintain it.