Experiencing Rejection: Missions in Unreceptive Fields

From a secular sociological perspective, rejection is something to be avoided if at all possible because it produces emotional pain, provokes anger, lowers self-esteem, destabilizes the need for belonging, and leaves psychological scars. However, God has called us to a new way of life and to a new way of thinking that redirects our focus beyond self. If our Lord Jesus Christ was rejected by the sinful world in which he lived, we can expect the same treatment from the sinful world in which we live (John 15:18-19; 1 Pet. 4:12-13). 

Fear of rejection is a major hindrance to many Christians being more actively involved in evangelizing. After all, it’s hard to fail at something if you’re doing nothing. But doing nothing is itself a failure to live up to the divine expectation of faithfulness (Matt. 25:25-30; 28:18-20). It should be no consolation to say to a discouraged Christian, “They’re not rejecting you, they’re rejecting Christ.” How can we seek comfort in Christ’s rejection?

“Receptive” Mission Fields?

The Lord has not commissioned us to take the gospel only to the parts of the world we deem receptive. How is receptivity to be determined anyway? A group might be labeled “unreceptive” even though they have not had sufficient opportunity to receive the unadulterated gospel. Do not judge a book by its cover. “So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (Isa. 55:11, NKJV). Throughout history, even when God knew that people would reject his message, he still determined they deserved a chance to hear it (cf. Isa. 6:9-13; Jer. 1:19; Ezek. 2:7; 3:11; Matt. 10:14). Jesus died for and told us to evangelize all accountable human beings, regardless of how we might judge their potential response. 

Some communities are called “receptive” simply because it is relatively easy to baptize the people, even though baptizing is not necessarily the same as converting. The Lord has commissioned us to “make disciples,” and part of the process is “baptizing them” (Matt. 28:18-20); but if we simply submerge compliant souls without sufficient teaching and discipleship, we have not fulfilled the Great Commission (cf. Luke 14:25-33). 

If people are being baptized for the wrong reasons, or most fall away, or churches are consistently weak (spiritually and doctrinally) or cease to exist, then the word “receptive” is misleading. Though it may be more difficult and will probably take longer to convert souls and establish congregations in these so-called “unreceptive” places, we often find there is little question about their motives and they typically make stronger disciples and remain faithful long term. 

I tend to be a bit skeptical when I read mission reports, especially from inexperienced or temporary workers, recounting hundreds of baptisms during a brief campaign effort, or thousands over a comparatively longer period. What happens when the workers leave? Without adequate instruction before and continued grounding afterwards, these “converts” inevitably drift back into their former way of life. If all the reports are taken at face value without any follow-up information, there ought to be hundreds more churches and thousands more Christians than can actually be found.

We can learn valuable lessons from past Catholic and Protestant missions. Large numbers of these missionaries lost their lives attempting to preach in hostile lands, and many of them struggled for a number of years before the first converts were made. Nearly one third of the Jesuits sent to China between 1581 and 1712 died before they even arrived. In the 19th century, in Ghana and Thailand, half the new missionaries died of disease. After twelve years in Ghana, all that the Basel Mission had to show for their efforts were eight missionary graves and only one survivor. Missionaries in Thailand labored for nineteen years before their first convert, and he wasn’t even a Thai national (Griffiths 19, 47-48, 122).

Today entire communities, regions, islands and nations profess some form of “Christianity” because of those willing to go to “unreceptive” fields. Imagine what could have been accomplished, and what can still be accomplished today, with the simple truth of the gospel! 

Missionary “Success”

It goes without saying that the church is to be a wise steward with our limited resources, although the notion of “success” is a dangerous concept if not framed biblically. The capitalist mindset determines success by quota. Since the primary missionary concern is spiritual in nature, how do we determine when we have done well or done enough, especially when visible results are not immediate? No matter how much time and effort a missionary expends, there is no guarantee he will have the desired quantifiable results by the end of the day, or month, or year, or decade. How is success to be measured, particularly in adverse and less responsive environments? If elderships and missions committees keep buying into the secular business model of getting the most bang for your buck, so many good works will continue to be unsupported or underfunded, making an extremely difficult task even harder (Terry and Payne 38-39, 43-44).

My Personal Experience

The day after my 26th birthday I moved to New Zealand as a single, inexperienced, naïve evangelist, with an initial four-year commitment to work with the church in the capital city of Wellington. It didn’t take long for my youthful zeal and idealistic expectations to be challenged by cold, hard reality. I soon discovered that not everyone was as excited about the message of Christ as I was. In fact, most were apathetic or resistant, and some antagonistic. There were more days of discouragement than I could count, and the temptation to quit was a constant battle. By the grace of God I managed to extend those four grueling years to seven productive years, and the Wellington church grew to one of the largest congregations in New Zealand at the time, with a strong, capable leadership. I returned to the states for a much-needed break, but surprisingly my convicted heart stayed on the mission field and kept trying to pull me back. I managed to convince a young lady to marry me, and we moved to New Zealand as newlyweds to the city of Wanganui, spending the next seven years working to establish a new congregation.

From the beginning I was reminded of how difficult the Lord’s work is in that part of the world. After the first two-and-a-half years, we only had four conversions to report: one had moved away, two had fallen away, while the fourth eventually became unfaithful too. On our first reporting visit to the states, what did we have to show for all the hard work? I was apprehensive about our supporters continuing to invest in this seemingly less-than-productive effort, but they did. Over the following years the Lord of the harvest provided the increase, and eventually the church was averaging about 45 in attendance (a sizeable number for New Zealand standards). Then members started moving away, due to job and education opportunities or medical reasons, until we gradually dwindled down to about a dozen. What kept us going was the much-needed exhortation: “And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart” (Gal. 6:9). By the end of our 7-year commitment, the church was back to around 40 members with a full-time NZ evangelist.

We moved back to the U.S. with our two daughters (both born in Wanganui), and I started teaching at Freed-Hardeman University. Almost every day my wife and children would ask when we could return home to New Zealand. I managed to put them off for nearly seven years, and one day I said to myself, “Why not?” I requested a leave of absence, and the administration seemed happy to not pay my salary for a couple of years. We managed to raise the necessary support and moved to Porirua City near Wellington to plant a new congregation. Two years later we left behind a church of around 30 members, with FHU alumni carrying on the work. While it has not been easy, after all these years I have finally come to a threefold realization that is now my philosophy of missions: (a) I don’t know what I’m doing; (b) I’m determined to do something; and (c) I trust in God to take care of the rest.

Lessons Learned

1. There is no such thing as an easy mission field. Mission fields might be labeled “difficult” because of poor or hostile living conditions and/or the apparent non-receptivity of the people. Some missionaries are willing to bear substandard living conditions as long as their work is fruitful, while others endure the slow and difficult nature of the work in a less formidable environment. If one is looking for “easy,” a career other than missions ought to be considered.

2. While missionary work is never easy, it does get easier. There have been days I felt like I was trying to climb a steep mountain in knee-deep mud. In fact, some days the mud was waste-deep or even up to my eyeballs! With each laborious step forward I could quickly slip back several more. Any progress seemed painfully slow and miniscule. Over the years the mud has not gotten any shallower or the mountain any less steep, but the climbing itself is less daunting. With God’s indispensable help, experience leads to growth, conviction, stamina, and a stronger faith. As dependence on the Lord increases, discouragement is less intense and felt less often. 

3. Flexibility and tenacity are key. Throughout my entire missionary experience, few things have ever worked out as planned. Each mission field is different, so a great deal has to be learned through trial and error. As missionaries we take what we can get and do the best we can with what we have, developing patience, ingenuity, and adaptability along the way (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23). The word “quit” must be removed from our vocabulary. “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).

4. Do not judge a work over the short term. Especially in a resistant culture, trying to measure results on a day-by-day, week-by-week, or month-by-month basis can be very frustrating and disheartening. Looking back over a several year period is when actual progress (or the lack thereof) can be seen. Are Christians still faithful? Are churches strong and growing? Is the gospel still spreading?  

5. There must be those willing to serve the Lord in more challenging fields. That’s what Jesus did. That’s what Paul and his companions did. That’s what missionaries have done through the ages. The gospel is still for all.

--Kevin L. Moore

Works Cited 

Griffiths, Michael. Tinker, Tailor, Missionary: Options in a changing world. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1993.

Terry, John Mark and J. D. Payne. Developing a Strategy for Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Cultural Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

*Prepared for the 2019 FHU Lectureship.

Related Posts: Obstacles or Opportunities?, My Life as a Missionary, Strategic Flexibility 

Image credit:https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/2110953/best-tactics-getting-most-out-your-staff-motivation-praise-or

Jesus’ Triumphal Entry and End of His Public Ministry (John 12)

The Anointing at Bethany (John 12:1-11)

     A few days after Jesus arrived in Bethany, not long before his arrest and execution, he was in the home of Simon the leper (Matt. 26:6; Mark 14:3). Since lepers were not allowed to intermingle with the general public (Lev. 13:45-46), Simon may have been a former leper whom Jesus or one of his disciples had healed (cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Mark 1:40-42; Luke 17:11-19). According to John, Lazarus and his sisters were also present, and Mary is identified as the one who anointed the Lord (John 12:1-8). Mary is unnamed in Matthew and Mark’s recounting of this event,¹ perhaps to provide anonymity and privacy for Lazarus’ family (cf. John 12:9-11). It was not until much later that John reveals her name (cf. 11:2).

     Mary had an alabaster flask (stone jar?) of a litra (Roman pound = about 12 ounces or less than ½ liter) of very costly spikenard oil,² worth more than 300 denarii. Seeing that a denarius was equivalent to one-day’s payment for a manual laborer (cf. Matt. 20:2), this would be worth nearly ten months wages! Mary used the fragrant oil to anoint Jesus’ head (according to Matthew and Mark) and feet (according to John).

     The disciples, prompted or led by the devious Judas Iscariot (John 12:4-6), objected because of the perceived waste. But the Lord reminds them that Mary was simply expressing her love and gratitude and was anointing his body for burial (v. 7). She was apparently among the few who understood that Jesus was about to die. The Lord did not anticipate a time in the future when poverty would be eradicated, so he enjoins on his followers their benevolent responsibility (v. 8; cf. Acts 20:35). Because Mary “did a good work” and “did what she could” (Mark 14:6, 8),³ her unselfish, gracious act was to be recorded in the written gospel (by Matthew, Mark and John) to be proclaimed throughout the world (Mark 14:9; cf. 16:15).

     While the Jewish authorities were plotting to kill Jesus (Matt. 26:1-4), they also wanted to murder Lazarus. Lazarus, whom the Lord had raised from the dead (John 11:1-44), was living proof of Jesus’ claims that caused many to accept him as the Christ (v. 45; 12:9-11, 17-19). This demonstrates the purpose of first-century miracles to confirm the Lord’s message and authority in order to produce faith (cf. 20:30-31). It also illustrates his prophetic observation that the unreceptive are blinded to the most compelling evidence, “even if one should rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31). An unwilling soul will not be convinced.

The Triumphal Entry (John 12:12-19)

     This account is also reported, with additional information, in Matt. 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11; and Luke 19:29-44. It fulfills the messianic prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. Bethphage and Bethany were villages close to one another on the eastern side of the Mount of Olives. It is possible that Jesus had prearranged the use of the donkey and her colt (Matt. 21:1-7), thus no resistance from the owners. The procession on the carpet of clothes and palm branches (John 12:13) reached all the way to Jerusalem, a distance of about two miles or three kilometers (John 11:18).

     Jesus is hailed King, a direct descendent of the great military hero David, with cries of Hosanna, meaning “please save” or “save now!” (Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9-10; Luke 19:38; John 12:13).⁴ The Jews had long anticipated a messianic figure “to redeem Israel” from foreign oppression (Luke 24:21) and to restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6), contrary to the Lord’s intended purpose (cf. John 18:36).

     The shouts of “King” during Christ’s triumphal entry were within earshot of the Pharisees (Luke 19:38-39; cf. John 12:19), who went on to accuse Jesus of making this claim himself (Luke 23:2-3; John 19:21). No doubt their ploy was to give the impression that Jesus was challenging the authority of Rome (John 19:12, 15) – a clear case of insurrection demanding the death penalty under Roman law.⁵ When Pontius Pilate later gave the Jewish crowds the choice of which prisoner to be released – the humble Galilean preacher (Jesus) or the defiant patriotic militant (Barabbas) – their decision was likely influenced by their misconceived messianic expectations. Consequently, Barabbas’ death sentence was repealed, while Jesus was condemned to be crucified.

Jesus’ Suffering and Death Predicted (John 12:20-36)

     Certain Greeks (perhaps proselytes, cf. 7:35) wanted to see Jesus, and their intermediaries were Philip and Andrew – Christ’s only apostles with Greek names (John 12:20-22). This follows the Lord having disrupted the business-dealings of profiteers in the temple’s Court of the Gentiles (Mark 11:11-17), the only part of the temple where Greeks were permitted. Jesus would not allow the temple compound to be a measly thoroughfare or revenue facilitator, and the two passages he quoted (Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11) pronounce salvation for all nations (inclusive of Gentiles) and the hypocrisy of false religion. No wonder these Greeks were drawn to the Lord, knocking on the door of his kingdom.

     Jesus uses this as an opportunity to speak of his impending suffering and death (John 12:22-36), which he had repeatedly foretold throughout his ministry.⁶ Humiliation, sacrifice, and subsequent glory were anticipated as part of the divine plan. His hour had come (v. 23; cf. 13:1; 17:1). Being lifted up on the cross would draw all peoples (Jews and Gentiles alike) to himself (vv. 32-33; cf. 3:14; 8:28), fulfilling what he had stated earlier: “… I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; these also I must bring, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock with one shepherd” (John 10:15b-16; cf. Eph. 2:11-16).

     Those given the chance to receive the Lord’s personal instruction were tremendously blessed: “the light is with you” (John 12:35a). But they were expected to heed what they were learning: “walk while you have the light …. believe in the light, that you may become sons of light” (vv. 35b-36). Unfortunately, many did not avail themselves of the opportunity graciously afforded (v. 37).

Lessons to Learn

·      From Mary’s humble act of anointing Jesus, we learn that whatever one has can be used in service to the Lord, and anything done for him is not in vain (1 Cor. 15:58). Mary “did what she could.” May each of us do the same.

·      From the antagonistic Jewish authorities we learn that prejudice, ignorance, and selfish pride adversely affect one’s response to the Lord. God has effectively revealed himself through his creation, through his Son, and through his written word (Rom. 1:1-4, 16-21). While the evidence is powerful, it will not convince those who are dishonest and unwilling.

·      From the Lord’s triumphal entry we learn that some might give the appearance of loyalty to Christ but can easily be persuaded to turn away from and even against him if not sufficiently grounded in truth. Preconceived misconceptions, misinformation, and peer pressure often hinder or thwart genuine faith (cf. Matt. 13:18-23).

·      From the Greeks who searched for Jesus, we learn the importance of a truth-seeking heart. They were not among the privileged Jews to whom Jesus was initially sent (Matt. 15:24) or given the law with knowledge of the divine will (Rom. 2:17-20; 3:1-2; 9:4-5). Nevertheless, they “came up to worship” and they sought out Jesus (John 12:20-21), exemplifying the divine promise that all who seek the Lord will surely find him (Matt. 7:7; Acts 15:17; 17:27).

·      From those who heard Jesus and were given the opportunity to obey him, we learn of the enormous blessing of having access to the Lord’s revealed word and the great tragedy of rejecting it. May we be among the receptive and obedient.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The similar event recorded in Luke 7:36-50 appears to have involved a different woman on a different occasion.

     ² Cf. Song of Solomon 1:12. Spikenard is a root with hairy spikes that grows on the Himalaya mountains; the aroma calms the nerves and promotes alertness, and is used today as incense.

     ³ Unless otherwise indicated, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ⁴ Cf. Psa. 118:25-26; also 2 Sam. 14:4; 2 Kings 6:26; 9:13.

     ⁵ See also Matt. 27:11, 29, 37, 42; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26, 32; Luke 23:2, 3, 5, 14, 37, 38; John 18:33, 39; 19:3, 14, 15.

     ⁶ Matt. 16:21; 17:12, 22-23; 20:18-19; [21:37-39]; 26:2; Mark 8:31; 9:9-12, 31; 10:32-34, 45; [12:6-12; 14:1]; 14:8, 27-28; Luke 9:22, 44; 18:31-34; [22:2]; John 3:14; 8:28, 37, 40; 12:22-36.

*Prepared for the 2016 Spanish-English workshop at North Jackson Church of Christ in Jackson, TN.

Related Posts: Barabbas 

Related articles: Dave Miller, Hosanna

Image credit: http://www.gslconline.org/Files/harkness/images/jesus_donkey.jpg

The Son of Mary

      The New Testament Gospels provide four independent accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Since they all deal with the same subject matter, there is understandably a great deal of overlap. Nevertheless, as each inspired author writes from a unique perspective, there are also a number of observable differences.

      According to the Gospel of Mark, when Jesus returned to his home community and taught in the local synagogue, the following sentiment was expressed about him: "‘Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?’ So they were offended at Him" (6:3 NKJV). In the other Gospels Jesus is referred to as "the carpenter’s son" (Matthew 13:55), "Joseph’s son" (Luke 4:22), and "the son of Joseph" (John 6:42) respectively. Only in Mark’s account is he identified as "the Son of Mary." While all of these statements were no doubt made, why has Mark chosen to record this particular expression? Its significance depends on the perspective with which it is viewed.
Words of Contempt
      From the standpoint of those who originally made the observation, it may have been intended as an insult. Within Jewish culture, one’s lineage was almost always linked to his father and/or other male ancestors (cf. Matthew 10:2-3; 16:17; Luke 3:23-38; etc.). An exception would be when there was a question about the moral integrity of one’s parentage (cf. Gen. 21:9-10; Judges 11:1-2). The residents of this particular community knew Jesus and his family, and the older generation would surely have remembered the alleged scandal of about three decades earlier.
      Mary, betrothed to a local carpenter named Joseph, seemed to be a virtuous young lady. But one day, after a visit to the hill country of Judah, she returned pregnant, and Joseph wasn’t the baby’s father! Now we have the advantage of knowing what was going on behind the scenes (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-45), but the contemporary locals presumably did not. You can imagine the shameful reports generated by the small-town rumor mill! Fast forward 30+ years as the hometown folks pondered: "Is this not . . . the Son of Mary?" Could there have been an undertone of contempt in these words? When Mark goes on to say that they were "offended" at him, the term he uses is skandalizō, the source of our English word "scandal." From this vantage point, Jesus is treated with disrespect and summarily dismissed. Is the prevailing world view of modern times any different?
Family Linkage
      From a purely historical perspective, another connotation emerges. The fact that Mary is specifically named and her husband conspicuously unnamed may indicate that Joseph was no longer around, having died and leaving behind a widow with at least seven children. The last time in scripture Joseph is depicted alive is Luke 2:41-51, when young Jesus was merely twelve years old. Afterwards there are numerous references to Mary, almost always in the company of her children (Luke 8:19; John 2:1, 12; etc.), but Joseph is nowhere to be found. By the time the Lord’s public ministry had begun, if his mother was in fact a widow left to care for her family alone, what responsibilities did Jesus have toward her and his younger siblings? And did he fulfill these domestic obligations or did he forsake them?
      If certain texts are read in isolation (e.g. Mark 3:31-35; 10:29-30), one might get the impression that Jesus neglected or even abandoned his temporal family, thereby giving others permission to do the same. But nothing could be further from the truth! As the Lord’s earthly ministry was carried out, his mother and his brothers (and sisters) remained in his company (John 2:12), and before his death he ensured that they would continue to be taken care of (John 19:25-27; cf. Acts 1:13-14). From this perspective we learn the divine expectation of fulfilling family duties (cf. 1 Timothy 5:8), exemplified in the life of Christ.
Fulfilled Prophecy
      When Jesus is called "the Son of Mary," there is a third consideration. From a theological standpoint, the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is indicated. God had spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel [i.e. ‘God with us’]" (Isaiah 7:14). Seven centuries later, when baby Jesus is supernaturally conceived in Mary’s womb without a human father, Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled (Matthew 1:21-23). Having been "born of a woman" by divine decree, Jesus is thus recognized as the Son of God (Galatians 4:4). Seeing that he is linked to humanity through his biological mother while maintaining his union with divinity ("God with us"), he serves as the perfect mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5).
Conclusion
      Who is the Son of Mary? From a worldly point of view, he is someone to be ridiculed and disregarded. From a historical standpoint, he is seen as a real person with a real family who took seriously his responsibilities as a devoted son and older brother. From a theological viewpoint, he is God in the flesh, providing redemption for mankind and reconciliation to the heavenly throne. How is the Son of Mary viewed from your perspective?
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Tempted as we are, Isaiah 7:14