Anyone with any mission experience will have reflected on this. The following
are just some thoughts to provoke some discussion, hopefully:
- Language. You won’t make many converts in (e.g.)
Russia or Mongolia or South America if you only preach in English. Those
mission brethren who have been more sensitive to this have generally
achieved more.
- Culture. The finest Christian missionary probably
wouldn’t make major inroads in terms of numbers if he started a mission
to Saudi Arabia etc. [in the same way as our attempts to convert the
post-Christian West aren’t too spectacularly successful either]. A Muslim
or other background religious culture is hard to shift en masse. A nominally
‘Christian’ area like many African states has a much higher potential
for large numbers of converts. But if we have the spirit of world-wide
witness rather than simply seeking mass conversions to our
Faith, we will be supportive of those who labour in the non-Christian
or Islamic world. Men from every nation / tongue / dialect will be,
finally, accepted before the throne. But from some of them, there may
well be very few indeed.
- The sovereign, unfathomable choice of God. He may
simply desire certain geographical areas to have larger numbers of His
people in.
- Human need. The key to conversion is surely knowing
our desperation. It seems rather superficial analysis to say: ‘The poorer
countries respond better’- although it may seem like that. On this basis
one would expect no conversions of rich Western people and huge responses
from feeding camps in Africa. But it isn’t quite so- rich Westerners
still convert, and people on the verge of death from starvation also
don’t respond so well. It isn’t the experience of poverty in itself
that converts, but a realization of ones’ desperation. It has to be
said, though, that the self-satisfied are therefore unlikely to convert.
It’s the spirit of self-satisfaction rather than the possession of material
wealth in itself which seems to hinder the conversion of the West.
- God prefers to work through personal witness rather than
through bits of paper, adverts, lectures etc.- not that I am
knocking them in themselves. They are inevitable in the process of establishing
the preaching work in a new area. But in the mission areas where the
most spectacular growth has occurred- e.g. India, Malawi- this is largely
due to the personal witness of locals rather than Western advertising
etc. And this fits in to a definite feature of Western preaching- personal
witness is far and away the preferred method of calling men to God’s
Truth rather than, e.g., leaflet distribution. The lesson seems to be,
therefore: establish the Truth in an area and then concentrate in building
up the local converts and encourage them to preach, rather than endlessly
mount ‘campaigns’. They are far better preachers than we are; and the
interest we might attract runs the risk of being for ‘loaves and fishes’
rather than genuine interest in the message. We want to build up a community
that magnifies God’s Name, not just produce numbers of visitors at lectures
etc. I am sure we are all quite genuinely agreed on this. Our ‘preaching’
efforts should be directed to fresh areas.
- The effort / quality of work put in by the Western missionaries.
This may sound as if we save men rather than the Lord. I don’t
obviously mean this. But then on the other hand, it seems that God does
as it were ‘limit’ Himself by delegating the work of witness to us.
We beseech men in Christ’s stead, and therefore His manifestation of
Himself to the world is to some degree limited by us. This is a frightening
and yet inspiring thought. Whilst our personal salvation is not on account
of our works, it is true that if we don’t witness the Gospel of salvation
to men, they therefore may not have a ‘chance’ of that salvation. God
could save and instruct whom He will- he requires not help
from man. And yet in His wisdom He has delegated this work to us His
servants. This is one reason why some mission areas reap a greater harvest
than others- because of the effort of the preacher. Now I am not saying
that if you preach in an area for years and make hardly any converts,
therefore you are working more shoddily than the preachers who gain
many converts. This could be the case; but not necessarily,
because there are other factors apart from the effort of the preacher
which must be considered when seeking to understand why some areas are
more fruitful than others. But because it could be the case,
we all need to ask ourselves: Is this my problem, in my
area??
Paul speaks of how he had been given areas in which it
was potentially possible for him to preach in, and he didn’t enter into
those areas which had either already been preached in, or which were another
brother’s responsibility. This seems to suggest that God does indeed look
down from Heaven and as it were divide up the world amongst those who
could preach in it. This is why Paul perceived that he had been ‘forbidden’
from preaching in some areas [e.g. Macedonia] and yet a door was opened
to him in Achaia. This language is allusive to the way in which the Lord
forbad Israel to conquer certain areas on their way to the promised land
(Dt. 2:37). The point is, between us, our preaching is a war of conquest
for Jesus, pulling down strong holds and fortresses as Paul put it; or,
as Jesus expressed it, taking the Kingdom by force, as stormtroopers.
Back
Index