I should like to pose a question:
why did Jesus tell the disciples to take nothing for the journey and go out
without money, staff, extra coat, etc.? I think a first response is he wanted
them to learn faith in him. Or could it be because Jesus knew some day there
would be Christians in poor countries that wouldn’t have a second coat so he
wanted his disciples to show them it could be done? Or could it be Jesus wanted
them to learn self-depravation as a spiritual discipline? While I agree these
might be factors, I would like to challenge our thinking to include the
response and reception of the people to whom they ministered. Could it be that
Jesus was suggesting this method of evangelism, missions, and ministry not so for
the disciples, but so that the people to whom they came to minister would
accept them in this vulnerable state?
The question could be asked of
Jesus as well: why did Jesus come to earth to a poor family in obscurity rather
than being born in a palace to a wealthy and powerful king? Our response this
time would not be so that Jesus could learn faith because he had all faith. Again
could the focus of God’s method be on the receivers rather than on the poor
messenger? Jesus was the Son of God yet came humbly. He was a king yet came as
a servant. He was all-powerful yet came in weakness.
What about the Apostle Paul? Why
did he enter cities in weakness rather than showing his incredible credentials
from the beginning? Could he have learned from his encounters with the risen Jesus
and his discipleship under Barnabas that the way to approach ministry is as a vulnerable
person rather than as a powerful one?
In 1 Corinthians 1: 18 – 31, Paul
has a discourse on the foolishness of the message of the cross according to
man’s wisdom. He explains that “God chose the foolish things of the world to
shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God
chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things
that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before
him (I Cor. 1:27-29). Could I suggest God chose vulnerable missionaries to
provide inroads into villages that might not accept the powerful or strong?
There was a time for the
demonstration of power, but it was God’s miraculous power rather than human
strength. There was a demonstration of strong character and mighty love and
devotion, but not military power, political force, economic superiority, academic
credentials, or social position.
Why? Jesus taught often of the
servant, the last being first, and the humble. Was this only for the Christian
living in his culture or could it also have been for the missionary in another
culture? And if so, why?
Allow me to divert for a while to
look at the story of Ruth. Ruth came into Bethlehem as a poor widow of the
despised Moabite people group. But she was later received to the point of being
highly honored and accepted by the community. Eventually her descendants became
kings and even the Messiah came from her. It was her noble character and the hesed (unfailing love) she had for Naomi
that endeared people to her. She was not a threat to the people of Bethlehem,
but rather many pitied her, came to aid, and supported her. Could her
vulnerability have been a key to her acceptance in the community?
If missionaries were to understand that
Christ’s instruction to go into a village humbly was for the sake of reception
rather than simply developing faith or some misunderstood poverty vow, they
might find valuable inroads for ministry.
When we enter a village vulnerably it
is not our strength that people see. If some accept us with open and hospitable
hearts like Boaz and the workers in his field then they may also receive our
message and miracles. If we were to enter a village in power those same people
may reject us and be turned off from the gospel.
May I suggest we as missionaries
ponder the instructions of Jesus in Matthew 10:9-10, Mark 6:8-9, Luke 9:3, and
Luke 10:4, we consider the possibility that the intention may be as much for
the receiver as for the messenger. Then let us consider Jesus’ words and “take
nothing for the journey.”
2 comments:
I've posed and and often asked the same question. Imagine if a missionary was supplied with all that he needed for missions, say, enough dollars to cater for everyday expenses, a land-cruiser jeep for road trips and personal jet for cross-border missions, sound equipment, etc. what if the missionary even got a diplomatic passport, and health and any other risks insurances. Would the message of the bible, that requires people to trust in God apply to the gospel recipients? would the person appear relevant? My trouble with relevance and this context is if the mission was targeted to the most influential in the society, just like Paul to the Roman emperors, what would a missionary do to remain relevant and still follow the Jesus way of doing missions, especially having in mind the cost implications of things that used to be available for free and are now being sold, like water. My take in this case is before any missionary undertake his work, must first survey the land. second get to know his main audience and thirdly communicate to the audience what he is living behind (i.e. "all") and giving for the mission (i.e. all, "himself").
Robert Kemboi Labarakwe
Post a Comment