This is part 3 of this topic:
- You can read part 1 HERE.
- You can read part 2 HERE.
- You can hear the sermon where I talked about some of these things HERE.
For ten years some things about traditional missions have bothered me
– at least my understanding of traditional missions. I'm not sure I
have the answers, but I struggle with several things. And I'm wide open
to being corrected on these issues…
Another question I have about missions…
3) Should we send missionaries to locations with Gospel penetration when there are so many without Gospel penetration?
There are 6000 people groups representing 2 billion people who have never heard of the Name of Jesus Christ. Should we be sending more missionaries to the most popular mission's locations when there are so many places with no Gospel witness?
I don't it is necessarily wrong (obviously) to send more missionaries to Mexico, Haiti, Brazil, or the Philippines. I just struggle to do so with so many places that need to be reached and we must figure out how to reach them. If mission's dollars were unlimited – I say we send as many as we can to as many places as we can. But since mission's dollars are limited – shouldn't we focus on those who have never heard?
Especially considering the following passages:
If people from every tribe, language, people and nation will be around the throne one day – I want our church to be a part of getting them there!
Also, if we are truly to be praying "even so come, Lord Jesus" and if he won't come (2nd coming) until the Gospel has been preached to every nation (Matthew 24:14) – then shouldn't that prayer cause us to focus on unreached people groups?
I don't feel dogmatic on this one either. I know we don't have to
choose between one or the other. But it sure seems to me that the scales
should be tilted with people and dollars toward unreached people groups.
What am I missing? How am I thinking wrongly on this? Help me see what I don't see.