THE “M” WORD

Acts 13 and 14

At a recent missions committee meeting one agenda item concerned the contest for alternative terms for “missions” and “missionaries. A prize of an ice cream party had been offered to the Home Based Fellowship to come up with the best new ideas. The results were disappointing – there were no entries. So the missions committee awarded the prize to itself!

The problem is an interesting one. It’s easy to see why it might be a good idea to replace terms that sound archaic in the 21^st century. For example, in much of the world, the words have a negative association with colonialism. In many countries the terms create a security risk.

But what are the alternatives?

This turns out not to be an easy question. One of the difficulties is this question: What is a missionary? For example, our church supports Liz and Tanya, who are both with us today. We list them with our missionaries but neither works explicitly cross-culturally. Liz works in an office. Tanya does creative work, designs books, and magazines, brainstorms new strategies. So are they missionaries?

Then we have the Hartley family – they will leave us soon to spend six-months in India. They will definitely be living and working in a cross-cultural situation.

What makes someone a missionary?

Acts chapters 13 and 14 describe the very first missions trip. Paul and Barnabas, with a helper John Mark, set out from the city of Antioch on a journey of about 1300 miles. Leaving Israel they set sail for Salamis on the island of Cyprus where they preach in a synagogue. Crossing the island they arrive at the more important city of Paphos. They meet a sorcerer, Elymas Bar Jesus, who has a great influence on the highest official of the city, Sergius Paulus. They strike Elymas blind, the official believes, and they leave for Perga in modern Turkey. (From this point on, Saul is called by his Greek name Paul.) The only event recorded from their stay in Perga is the return of John Mark for Jerusalem.

From Perga they travel to Pisidian Antioch, so-called to distinguish it from Syrian Antioch. Paul preaches a very long sermon in the synagogue and the next week after he preaches again, they have a huge crowd, many believe, and because of opposition from the Jewish leaders, Paul and Barnabas are expelled from the city. They move on the Iconium, preach in the synagogue, many believe, but opponents plot to stone them. In their next stop, Lystra, Paul heals a lame man, leading the people to mistake them for gods. But then the crowd turns on them. Paul is stoned and left for dead.

He recovers and they go on to Derbe where they preach before retracing their steps through the same cities.

What makes this a “missionary” journey?

It’s clear that Luke sees it as a model. The whole of Acts is a collection of “firsts.” What parts of Paul and Barnabas’s strategy should we ask our missionaries to learn from?

For example, my daughter Ruth Anne is on a trip through Europe. What kind of report would we need to get from her to convince us that she is on a legitimate missions trip?

Suppose we get a report something like this:

In Amsterdam I preached in the synagogue two weeks in a row. The second week a crowd of Muslims showed up to hear me and

And the regular congregation got upset and had us expelled.

We went on to Paris where we discovered that the mayor is under the influence of an astrologer. I struck the astrologer blind. From Paris we went on to Switzerland where I healed a lame man in Zurich and that gathered quite a crowd. But they were fickle and turned on us. I was stoned and left for dead – but don’t worry. I’m feeling fine now.

There’s lots more, of course. Now we’re busy retracing our steps visiting the churches we established in Prague, Krakow, Zurich, Paris and Amsterdam – we have to appoint elders and do some training?

Would this be sufficient? Would that make Ruth Anne a real missionary? What is it about Paul and Barnabas’s trip that makes it a “missionary” journey? It’s inspiring, but most of what they do can’t be repeated and much we wouldn’t want to repeat. So how is this a model for us? What do we learn about missions?

Let’s ask another question: How did Paul and Barnabas become missionaries?

Acts 13:1-4 (NIV) “In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Locus of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”

Paul and Barnabas were part of the leadership team of a thriving church. We also know it was a generous church, having sent a gift to poor Christians in Jerusalem. In fact they sent Barnabas and Paul to deliver it. This leadership team was gifted, and it was diverse:

Barnabas was a Jew from a priestly family.

Simeon, called Niger, was probably an African convert to Judaism.

Lucius of Cyrene was from North Africa.

Manaen was from the royal family of Herod.

Saul (or Paul) was a Pharisee.

And God says, “Take two-fifths of this leadership team – and let them go. I have special work for them.” God wanted them to send their best men away. These men were not from the bottom of the barrel, they were the top leaders. So they pray, they lay hands on Paul and Barnabas, and they send them off.

And at that moment Paul and Barnabas became missionaries. The church doesn’t know where they are going (neither do Paul and Barnabas.) They don’t know what they’ll do, and they have no control.

What makes them missionaries is that they are sent:

Sent by the Holy Spirit AND sent by the Church

(sent by the church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.)

Our work “mission” comes from same root as the word missile – missionaries are “sent ones.”

So Tanya and Liz can relax – you are missionaries even if you haven’t preached in a synagogue or been stoned.

BUT, and it’s a big BUT -- they can’t be missionaries if there’s no one to send them. One of the saddest conversations I’ve had was with an American couple working in Afghanistan. I asked them where their home church was, and they answered, “We don’t have a home church. We travel to many churches, but we have no one church we call our church.”

Missions is the work of the church. Without the church there are no missionaries. In Romans 10:15, Paul asks rhetorically, “How can they preach unless they are sent.” You can’t separate missions from the church or the church from missions.

The church in Antioch was unselfish – willingly letting go of its best. It was a place of equipping. It was a place of accountability and it was a place to come home to. Acts 14: 27 and 28 reports the return of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, to the church which had sent them out: “On arriving there, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. And they stayed there a long time.”

Acts 13 and 14 are a reminder that one of the most basic responsibilities of the church is to send. Our job is to launch our members into the world. To see the church as a sending agency reorients our thinking.

Every day you are sent out into the world. The oxygen is thin out there. Think of yourself as a mountain climber –

The church is your base camp.

The church is where you are re-supplied, equipped, and where you report back to.

And if we think of it this way, we’ll take it more seriously – do you really want to run out of oxygen?

So should we continue to use the terms missions and missionary? Maybe the words don’t matter so much, but it turns out that they perfectly capture an idea we need to hold on to:

Sending is just what the church does.

Jesus said to his disciples, “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” John 20:21