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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As usual, I think you've been given great insight into the muddied, wrong association of the cultural (MANmade)category of "missions" (with all its good and too-often bad intentions), and simply having a heart and mind for God. One is not the other; and I appreciate how your commentary helps to illuminate the separation/divion of these two.
ReplyDeleteA question on something you briefly mention in this post: you write that no one on this side of life can know how pure Paul's doctrine was. I guess I wonder if you can expand on this idea for me....it seems like a significant comment to merely breeze over. If Paul's recorded doctrine was God-breathed, then don't we know it is pure? And if it wasn't....well you know where I'm going with this....should we trust the Bible at all?
Your question itself is insightful, and is also conducive to allow me to ask a few questions.
ReplyDeleteHere we go –
1. Which part of the Bible do we read that tells us the most about God?
2. Which part of the Bible do we read that tells us the most about “church”?
I think most people would answer that we learn about God throughout the Bible, from Genesis in the Old Testament to Revelations in the New Testament. Rightfully so, and so to answer your question: By all means we should trust The Bible, defend The Bible, live by The Bible. I firmly believe it is God’s blueprint for life, everlasting and pure.
To learn about “church”, however, where do we get our overlying view of the church as an institution? Where do learn the most about the church’s hierarchical authority, governance, protocol, membership, etc.? Will we not conclude that the bulk of the church’s framework is found in the New Testament? And upon further inspection, won’t we also notice that it is from Paul’s letters (epistles, if you will) that we find much of the regulatory practices that exist in the church?
Think about it: *(a.) Where do we learn who is to speak and when he should be speaking during the worship service? *(b.) Where is the number of persons who should speak, even if it is with a heavenly (read “speaking in tongues”) message addressed? *(c.) Where do we learn of the qualifications of a “minister” (pastor, apostle, deacon, church elder, etc.), and *(d.) a definitive list of the different job descriptions of church ministers? Clearly the blueprint for the “church” as we know it stems from Paul’s letters. You won’t find anywhere near the weight of doctrinal espousing from any of the gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), or from any of the early church leaders (again John, Peter, Jude, etc.).
This leads me to the premise that Pauline Doctrine has become an overriding authority in the church that has brought the church to a state of irrelevance and even apostasy.
Let me add that (1.) Paul was not an enemy of the Christian faith, (2.) nor was it a mistake that his letters were included in the New Testament. Paul was an activist of the Christian faith, and because he associated primarily with Gentiles, he knew first-hand the need for protocol among converts in their faith practices; thus he wrote letters to these different groups in attempts to steer them away from disorder and fallacy.
It is this same Pauline Doctrine that men have seized upon in order to bring about much of error that exists in the Christian faith; however to blame Paul for his letters would be the same as blaming Moses for using his staff against deadly serpents, as later that staff would become an object of worship.
Martin Luther’s protest of papal authority over Christ’s authority was a start, but to no surprise it stopped short of bringing finality to the “arm of the flesh” that inevitably surfaces among religious endeavors. The historical church will always feature a “Hall of Fame”, but the irony here is that Christ is to have first place in all things.
Finally to address the last part of your question (as to whether or not I believe Paul’s messages are “God-breathed”), I suspect it has already occurred to you that the expression itself is translated from another of Paul’s letters (2 Tim. 3:16-7). So to paraphrase a thought, “The same person who is saying, ‘Trust me. . . this is really the Word of God.’ is in actuality no more of an authority on God than many other proclaimers of the faith.”
My answer to this is, “There you go thinking again.”
*a. 1 Cor. 14:34-5, Tim 2:11-2; *b. 1 Cor. 14:27-30; *c. Tim. 3:1-14, Titus 1: 6-9; *d. 1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11
I've sent my answer to your email address because it was rejected for being too large. Thank you for the insightful question, however; perhaps I will post it as another blog.
ReplyDelete