In a bit of a hijack here, in the late 1960’s Mitt Romney was a missionary in France for the Mormon Church.
That matters not a whit to a good Calvinist. http://www.religioustolerance.org/calvinism.htm
According to Wiki, these European countries have an official religion:
Cyprus
Denmark
England
Finland
Greece
Liechtenstein
Malta
Monaco
Norway
Scotland
Switzerland
Vatican City
Seems like there’s more than enough religion in that neighborhood.
Does this one really count? Really?
C’mon, it’s a country AND a religion. It’s the Mop & Glo of faith.
There’s precedent: Ned Flanders donated his $50,000 free-throw winnings to “Bibles for Belgians”.
And you guys who would convert women in French brothels: I can only imagine which ‘position’ you’d favor.
It’s about time someone someone addressed the plight of the godless French. And I for one have long favored taking a position in the French brothels.
First of all, many Christians – and many missionaries – are not Calvinists. Ergo, even if we were to grant your point, it would still be irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Second, even Calvinists believe in the need for missions work. For example, George Whitfield, as staunch a Calvinist as ever walked the earth, was an outspoken advocate of evangelism. One could discuss the theology behind that, but it’s ultimately irrelevant. Why? Because the Great Commission specifically commands the church to “make disciples of all nations,” not just converts. In other words, they are not just to evangelize; rather, they are obligated to share the Word and train people in righteousness. Ergo, even if we were to grant your claim regarding Calvinism to be correct, it still would not nullify the need for missions work.
In other words, I think your objection fails at multiple points. It fails because not all Christian believers are Calvinists. It fails because Calvinism does not inherently oppose evangelism. And it fails because, even if Calvinism did make evangelism unnecessary, there is still Christ’s command to make disciples of all nations.
I believe the missionary position in France is secure, as it is in virtually every nation on earth. I know of no laws threatening to the missionary position. I am deeply suspicious of those who plan to go to France and assume the missionary position. Well, maybe ‘deeply jealous’ is a better term.
I say there are plenty of American congregants who need to get laid more than the French. America First!
Well, I’m sure you’re a nice guy and all, Jim, but I’m afraid you’re just not my type, me being straight, so. . .
I’m hardly trying to prove a point. I’ve noted an activity going on in my area, the local Calvinists raising funds to support a missionary and their family in France, I’m stating my beliefs about the purpose of missionary work, and I’m soliciting facts and opinions about whether my beliefs are correct.
And now having been educated that the mission of a missionary is to convert people to that missionary’s particular form of belief, I now believe even more strongly that my proper response, when asked to make a contribution to help a missionary’s mission, is a resounding “No”.
And my comment about Calvinists was relating to the fact that they feel works are irrelevant to salvation. They do what they do for their own reasons, not to get into heaven.
And that’s the point that you raised – that they should be ministering in impoverished nations rather than a prosperous nation like France.
If you didn’t claim to have a point, then why raise this objection at all?
The Christian mission is both physical and spiritual. There is nothing mutually exclusive about them. And one mission trip of one congregation or denomination doesn’t come close to defining it.
There are Christian missionaries all over the world at all times, helping the local people build houses or churches or schools, providing medical care or food or school supplies, taking care of the physical needs of people who don’t have the means to do those things. But we all know that physical needs are only half the story. I’d bet we all know someone who has every physical thing he needs, and is still unhappy or unfulfilled or searching for something more meaningful. That, too, is part of what Jesus came to take care of. That, too, is part of what he cares about. And the Great Commission, to make disciples of all men, is no less important than his instructions to help the poor.
It happens that this particular mission is one you can’t support. So don’t. But don’t say that the spiritual needs of all people are not part of a Christian’s concern. They have to be, it’s just as much a part of the faith as giving food or shelter or care.
Neither one of us does, but I think you seem to have an idea of how likely that is. 
But back to the earlier part – you recognize the existence of the Great Commission, yet your line of discussion somehow seems to suggest that the call to “preach to all nations” and the call to “comandments, love, charity, follow-me” are somehow in zero-sum dialectic, or that some sort of evangelical hermeneutics must make one subordinate to the other. I may be getting it wrong, but that’s how it’s coming across to me. Clarification?
It looks to me rather that “Commandments-Love-Charity-SelfSacrifice”, which is presented as the answer to a (rich) man-on-the-street who came up and asked, is implied to be the basic instruction that would apply to ALL followers of the Christ; then, on top of that, is laid the Great Commission, which appears as imparted by Jesus of his own initiative to the Apostles and inner-circle disciples (those who behold his Resurrected apparitions), and by inference to those who’d follow them in the ministry. J. Q. Everychristian has to obey the commandments, love his/her neighbor, sacrifice, give to charity and follow Jesus’ example; ADDITIONALLY to that, s/he who would participate in a ministry (ordained or lay) should also seek to preach the Gospel and make disciples among any who will listen, anywhere he may be heard.
Of course, the other believers are expected to* support* the ministry, if they’re not doing it themelves; plus specially in the Protestant tradition there is a strong notion of the whole body of believers being themselves the ministry.
Are you saying I shouldn’t have opened the thread at all, to share my opinion and ask if it reflected the facts?
Or are you saying that what I posted about Calvinist theology is wrong? If so, please show me where. So far you’ve shown nothing contraindicating that Calvinists believe that works are not necessary for salvation, which was my point.
Actually I was trying to suggest the opposite. From my uninformed standpoint, missionary work first brings to mind such activities as orphanages, hospices and such, where “preach to all nations” and “commandments, love, charity, follow-me” are being practiced at the same time. I feel like the “love and charity” part of the religion-- sacrificing to the needy-- is the most effective form of preaching, and possibly the truest expression of Jesus’ message, since he went out of his way to emphasize that himself. Therefore, if I am confronted with “missionaries” whose preaching is not obviously combined with charity work, I am inclined to wonder what’s preventing them.
Sure, the missionaries could go preach at the French directly, since France is apparently among the most spiritually depraved of modern nations. However, I suspect that if they spent their time offering aid to less fortunate areas, they’d actually be doing more good (as well as promoting their faith more effectively.) If they went to help out a poverty-stricken nation that speaks French, like Haiti or the Central African Republic, then so much the better: France will probably hear about their efforts sooner or later anyway.
This makes sense. It seems to me that the ideal missionary would seek a path where they could effectively do all of these things at once. It’s not as though there’s any shortage of needy people in the world.
Not at all. I’m saying that you ARE trying to present and defend a point, despite your claim to the contrary.
Were you not suggesting that it’s wrong for these people to minister in France? If so, then you are trying to raise a point — specifically, an objection to their methods. If there was no point to your posting, then surely it would have beloned in MPSIMS instead.
Back yon, shit, 20 years ago, I was a sweet faced undergrad at a medium sized university in the largest city in Western Canada. Now, despite what the folks at Lonely Planet may have you believe, this chunk of the country is pretty civilized- we had books and cable TV and operas and shit. We also had Christian churches at every bloody intersection and a whole slew of Jesus-based TV offerings. We as a culture were quite familiar with the existence and teachings of one ‘Jesus of Nazareth’.
This didn’t stop, however, a gaggle of Texan youth to infiltrate our campus under the banner of “Campus Crusade for Christ”. These half dozen or so young men were given to believe that Vancouver was a craven, hedonistic wasteland of dope fiends and free-ish sex devotees who needed their particular brand of New Testament guidance*, since we were clearly lacking knowledge and awareness about said J of N.
No, none of them returned to Texas as pot-addled polysexuals or anything, but after a few of the spirited debates over lunch plates that only college students have the ardency to muster, they somewhat came to consider that perhaps us heathens were well acquainted with the teachings of the bible, either from childhood experience or cultural saturation, and chose not to worship. They definitely came to the realization in fairly short order that their patronizing attitude towards our alleged ignorance of matters spiritual and/or hedonistic ways would not be appreciated, but we were very much in the spirit of live-and-let live and would not force liquor or harlots down their throats if they returned the Jesus based courtesy.
In other words, I think the French are doing just fucking fine without the missionary invasion, but if the m’aries mind their manners they may be invited to some nice parties.
*Assessing the validity of this stereotype remains an exercise for the reader.
No. I said that what they were doing didn’t seem to jibe with what I thought the mission of missionaries was, and asked if I was off base. I was informed that I was off base about that, among other things.
But when the point was raised about the need to do good works, that’s when I pointed out that good Calvinists didn’t believe works made any difference at all in the salvation scheme of things. An observation, rather than an argument, as I’d already accepted that my pre-conception about missionary activity did not reflect mainstream thinking about same.
It seems like it’s the most fundamentalist and culturally restrictive sects that are doing most of the missionary work. Yep, they’ll change the ways of those wine drinking, nude sunbathing, and non-procreating Europeans all right!