Thursday, 25 October 2007
-
Dear single men,
I have the opportunity of a lifetime for you. See, I just found my dream job. In a nutshell, the church in the Democratic Republic of Congo needs a music ministry specialist to develop/teach/coach church music/musicians. That has my name all over it.
The downside is, they won't let single women come alone. So it would seem that I need to get married. This is where you come in. I think right after graduation (this May) would be best.
I just need one of you to commit from (min) four years to (max) life in the D.R. Congo.
Love,
Sarah.
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to smmrmn's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in smmrmn's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (31)
A very interesting marriage proposal - in the words of Tina Turner "What's Love got to do with it?" :)
I can't help but feel there's something very wrong about this. You will never find a good man who is also willing to structure his life around his wife's career goals. The two are mutually exclusive. So you could get someone who's already going to the Congo, or a sap. You're much more likely to get a sap, IMHO.
Plus, a wife or child is the last thing you'd want to take to a place like the D.R.C. I shudder at the thought of it. There's a lovely picture about halfway down this page, if you're wondering why.
...good thing I'm not planning on taking a wife or a child to Congo....
Plus, that picture is all the more reason to at least take Christ to the D.R.C.
"The downside is, they won't let single women come alone."
The downside? I think the church in the Congo realized, to their credit, that white Christian men in our hemisphere are too stupid not to send their single daughters overseas.
As far as taking the gospel is concerned, haven't they already received it? Taking the gospel to all nations does not entail supplying the entire world with clergy. Once the Church is established, that is the responsibility of the indigenous population. As is their internal state of affairs.
Let me put it another way: at the Last Judgment, when all the evils of the modern Western world are considered, whether they be abortion, sodomy, or whatever, is God going to turn to the African or the Korean church and say, "If only you'd sent more missionaries..."? Of course not! The responsibility rests on us, on our apostasizing as nations, and on the Church here.
Further, one might argue that the great commision was delivered to the apostles, on the foundation of which the Church is built, and not, as is commonly asserted, to the Church itself. Consider the content of the 7 letters. Or even the pastoral epistles, for that matter. Where is the emphasis on missions? For these reasons I think that the function of foreign missionaries is something akin to that of apostle. The contermporary notion of ordinary Christians going overseas to "do their time" helping Afrikans build houses or whatever is nothing but paternalistic international do-good-ism. Is it motivated by Christian charity? At least in part to be sure; but I would contend that guilt is often the bigger player. Fake guilt promulgated by cheap televangelists and their ilk, and the real guilt caused by our real failures on the home front. We hope to assuage it by sending money to starving children half-way around the globe.
It's easier than taking the logs out of our eyes and seeing what we've really become.
/offensive rant]
I was going to stay out of this but I can't. To Sarah's credit I think she is able to spot a "sap" (whatever your qualification for this catergory is).
And you can't tell me that Michelle is in South Africa or the Mynders in Suriname etc. because of "paternalistic international do-goodism" or "fake guilt". I'm hoping that's not what you meant.
So now that I broke my policy of avoiding internet debates......
Well Kevin, since we're quoting the authorities, in the words of Deep Purple, "Love don't mean a thing".
;)
Nich, nothing I said was intended as a personal attack against anyone. On the contrary, I have a lot of respect for Gerry and his family. As for Michelle, I may have pretty strong views on that, but it doesn't mean I don't pray for her or attribute anything but the best motives.
I also was not suggesting Sarah would go for a sap. Just dividing the topic and exhausting the possibilities.
Okay, I'm a big fan of debates, and this theological one sounds fun! (I'm addressing the various arguments of A_A_Plewew 8:44 post in somewhat the order they are given.)
When Hudson Taylor said he wanted to go to China, the missions director said, "If God wanted to save the Chinese, he wouldn't need you." On the contrary, we know that God uses existing Christians to bring others to Him. It seems to me that solid Christians from one country would want to help struggling or non-Christians of another in their faith. If we really know the gospel, the truth that we are more sinful than we ever dreamed but more loved than we ever imagined, our gratiude will overflow to where we want to spread this news to everyone, including those in D.R.C. I think if we don't have the desire to share this truth, then we are missing the gospel.
I don't believe that overseas missions are all bad or that they are always evidence of a sore concience. I think that they are a way for Christians to use their particular gifts. Consider Paul's words on unique gifts in 1 Corinthians: 27-31? Some are gifted in the leading of worship through music, others are gifted in counseling while still others are gifted in making people feel welcome to the church body. Following this reasoning, some are gifted to be overseas missionaries while others are gifted to be preachers in their own country. God appoints unique individuals to unique tasks, and in the end, his people are everywhere.
As far as conforming the nations to our standards of church government, we don't have to impose our form of worship or our clergys on other nations, but we can be there supporting them in their faith and encouraging them to work out the cultural details of how they go about their worship meetings and setting up their churches based on the Bible.
Now, I believe that Jesus did in fact give the Great Comission to us all. It seems to me that the apostles represented the Christian church at the time the comission was given, so God gave them the instructions for all Christians. If the things that Jesus spoke directly to the apostles applied exclusively to them, then how do we interpret the verse where he says to them, "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would not have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will take you to be with me that you also may be where I am"(Jn 14:2-3)? Does that mean that only the apostles get a place in heaven?
As for the missionaries and supporters of missions who have ulterior motives, I don't deny their existence, but I do not think that we should totally wash our hands of missions because of them. I think that we should continue to do what we believe God has called us to do, regardless of how others are doing it. When it comes to building houses and stuff like that, it is an opportunity for you personally to be the hands of God blessing people in need. Only God knows the heart, and he knows whether you build the house to glorify him or to appease you concience and that's what matters. It all comes down to whose approval are we seeking, conciously or subconciously?
So there's my two cents!
JNM... I don't know who are. I'm guessing female (my opologies if you're not) and that "M" might stand for "Moerman" (again, my apologies if you're not
).
We're not really arguing at the same level. You're reading a few things into my statements that aren't really there. Unfortunately, there are a lot of factors at play here and I probably seem to you to be way more extreme than I actually am. While I won't take the time to explain my worldview in this context, I will make a few comments.
Your 1st paragraph:
"It seems to me that solid Christians from one country would want to help struggling or non-Christians of another in their faith."
And I maintain that foreign missions is a special calling. It seems to you that solid Christians would want to help people in other countries? Why the emphasis on other countries? Most of us seem to be afflicted with "telescopic philanthropy" in this regard. The biblical emphasis is always on your family, neighbours, and countrymen. The parable of the Good Samaritan calls us to be neighbours to those whose paths we cross in everyday, human existence, not to expend our charitable impulses on random people in faraway lands with whom we never have anything to do, except vicariously on TV.
Paul says if you don't care of those closest to you, you're worse than an unbeliever. The circle of personal responsibility starts with those to whom you have the most direct connection, and diminishes in priority the farther removed you become. You do not have an equal responsibility to every human being on the planet, so you must prioritize and follow the role relations as exemplified in Biblical teaching. You have virtually no direct responsibility to people on the other side of the world. This is why I've said foreign missions is a special calling.
Your 2nd paragraph:
"...some are gifted to be overseas missionaries while others are gifted to be preachers in their own country."
I've never said otherwise. That much should be obvious.
3rd paragraph:
"As far as conforming the nations to our standards of church government,..."
Stop! My comment on supplying the world with clergy has nothing to do with this. I believe in one Church, many nations. I.e. Though the nations remain separate, we ought to maintain an upper-level (general assembly, confessionalism, etc...) ecclesiastical unity. However, we haven't even achieved this within a single nation, let alone any sort of broad global unity.
But obviously, there will always be various types of interaction between the Church in different countries, and so it should be.
4th paragraph:
"It seems to me that the apostles represented the Christian church at the time the comission was given, so God gave them the instructions for all Christians."
Again, it seems to you? You're argument via analogy isn't really applicable, since some things Jesus says are to particular people (i.e. Peter, Judas, the Apostles) and some thing are universal. You can only determine which is which by context, exegesis, process of elimination, etc... So you're only argument is that it seems to you that the Apostles represented the Church, and thus "all Christians". This is totally counter-intuitive. So every individual Christian should take the Gospel to Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth? It's obvious by the context of the geography that he's speaking to the Apostles as Apostles, not as the Church. And this command is just what the apostles (and their proteges) set about fulfilling. The fact that the mission field is generally not for ordinary Christians is evidenced by the heated debate over whether to allow John-Mark to accompany the apostles. They abviously took it very seriously, and there's no way they would have raided the local youth group to do short-term outreach half-way across the empire.
"When it comes to building houses and stuff like that, it is an opportunity for you personally to be the hands of God blessing people in need."
The way you live your life, in the normal life-circumstances in which God has placed you, is the default context for good deeds, charity, and sanctfication. There is nothing extra holy about the sort of things they do in short-term missions. Your everyday life is just as good (or bad). Now, you may think, there doesn't seem to anything I can do here that seems as tangilble. In this case, individuals really need to think about what their role ought to be, and then live it out. Focus on your natural, obvious responsibilities and you can expand your horizons gradually and with limited, particular focus.
Besides, there are serious, tangible faults right here at home, but the problem is we don't know they exist. What are they and how do they affect us? Try political correctness, usury and economic globalization. The problem with these issues, however, is that on the surface they appear complex (fractional-reserve banking, etc...) and so only a few people take the time to understand them, but they can't be combatted on an individual level. On the other hand, it's pretty easy to understand TV images of starving kids.
As for motive, they say the path to Hell is paved with good intentions. (sorry about the cliche) Our social Zeitgeist is built on guilt and pity, and so this milieu can be a source of someone's actions without being their motivation on a personal level.
A_A_Plewes: Nah, you don't seem extreme, I just didn't totally get what you were saying...providing a counter argument helped me understand your argument better! (All rhetorical, by the way, no offense...we do a lot of debating in my family, but it's all good!) I'm totally for missions at home too, my family are missionaries from California to California! I was just dealing with the topic of foreign missions in my post.
Good debate! I think we broke some records for longest xanga comments!
-JMartinez
"Now, you may think, there doesn't seem to anything I can do here that seems as tangible. In this case, individuals really need to think about what their role ought to be, and then live it out. Focus on your natural, obvious responsibilities and you can expand your horizons gradually and with limited, particular focus. Besides, there are serious, tangible faults right here at home, but the problem is we don't know they exist."
Actually, this is one (1) of the reasons that several missionaries (Mr. Van Dalen, Dr. Whytock) recommend going out on mission trips. You gain a new perspective on own situation at home - you see the areas where you can be doing more; and you care more, too, because you get a bigger picture of the enormous need there is, and how urgently people need the gospel.
And so while "There is nothing extra holy about the sort of things they do in short-term missions," there may be something extra beneficial in them, which may even lead to a bit of extra holiness.
/sideways spin]
Forget not the example of Gladys Alyward.
http://www.traveltheroad.com/missions/missionaries/aylward.php
...and etc. Many such examples exist. Take that, missions board requirements!
PS: I *wish* the 'M' stood for Moerman... ;)
I shall wade into the dialogue with only one post :).
On going to D.R. Congo - this nation is still in the throws of a violent ethnic and civil war that has seen millions of people killed in the last decade [sounds like a regular African state]. Women have very little rights and are often the subject of violence. So I would be hesitant on even the wife of a married couple going to the DRC, let alone a single woman.
Adam - just a small point on your comment "The contermporary notion of ordinary Christians going overseas to "do their time" helping Afrikans build houses or whatever is nothing but paternalistic international do-good-ism. Is it motivated by Christian charity? At least in part to be sure; but I would contend that guilt is often the bigger player. Fake guilt promulgated by cheap televangelists and their ilk, and the real guilt caused by our real failures on the home front. We hope to assuage it by sending money to starving children half-way around the globe." It is hard for some not to take such an ad-hominin remark and not feel personally attacked. Now I would contend that even for an "ordinary Christian" to go somewhere to help with a building project, whether overseas or within the same continent, is part of the sharing of their giftedness, whether it be money or actual physical labour, and that it is proper.
It seems the issue is as much about the difference between mission and missionary work, as it is anything. I do think that being an actual "missionary" in the traditional sense of the gospel labour as a calling and life committment has been lost in many people's minds. Some because many foreign gov'ts have closed the door to traditional missionary proselytizing, some because travel to and from is so much easier, and soem because short-term missions are so much easier to be involved in wihtout a lot of commitment and sacrifice. The "setting apart" of men for such mission work is both a calling and act of the church [Acts 13:1-3].
The issue of single women in mission versus missionary work is an another topic.
Ooops "The "setting apart" of men for such mission work is both a calling and act of the church [Acts 13:1-3]." should read
"The setting apart of men for such missionary work is both a calling and act of the church [Acts 13:1-3].
"You gain a new perspective on your own situation at home - you see the areas where you can be doing more;"
Do you? I've never met a missionary who seemed to have any particularly unique insight on our situation in the West. To be sure, you gain first-hand experience with raw deprivation and the unique depravities of the people to whom you minister. But the "perpective" gained in foreign missions, to my mind, contributes only to "understanding" our problems in relatively limited areas. What most people seem to come away with are naive ideas relating to things like "white priviledge" etc... (Not that I'm accusing anyone.) It's fairly typical to hear statements to the effect that since we are so "wealthy" and they are so "poor", we ought to even things up a bit. Whether you agree with this idea or not, the assertion that we're "wealthy" is evidence of having no understanding of the problems that afflict us. We now only possess a dim illusion of wealth. But's that not the topic here.
Kevin, I mostly agree with you here. My only contention is with your second paragraph. Maybe I should furnish an example to help illustrate my point:
When you see a poster featuring hungry-looking children with sad eyes and phrases like "One child dies every 20 seconds," what do you think it's trying to evoke in you? Two things: guilt and pity. The unspoken assumption behind much of this type of thing is that these kids have a claim on you. But in point of fact, do they?
In your role as a husband and father, and in your calling as a pastor, there a lot of people of whom this can legitimately be said. If one of your children was in a desparate situation, since they have a legimitate claim on your support, if you had to you would sell all your Star Trek DVDs to meet the need.
If these dying children in Africa do indeed have a claim on you, ought you not to sell your Star Trek DVDs and send them food with the money? In fact, while you're at it, your kids have more than the bare minimum, so why not give them a little less to eat so you can meet your obligations in Africa?
Now, if on the contrary they don't have such a claim to your support, what is the moral classification of relief-oriented charity? Works of supererrogation? This is a legitimate ethical question, and one which is rarely given a straight answer.
It's not that I'm against all short-term engagement or missions work, as you call it. It's just that I don't believe in yanking people out of their proper roles (i.e. women and children especially) and putting them in situations which impede the fulfillment of more immediate responsibilities, even when these are not really understood. That understanding is where our focus should be.
If you had more time I would suggest Sebastian, (we'd surely be blessed to have a Moerman in the family) but alas he just turns 6 in November so the wait might be a little more than you wanted. But maybe that time things will have calmed down in the Congo so we wouldn't have to fear for your saftey.
This article is a must read. It might help explain to some degree where I'm coming from.
Wow, thanks Brian. I hear Sebastian is a cutie. I've got time (and so does the Congo).
Wait a sec. I said next spring, didn't I. That could be a problem.
what an interesting debate... i wish we could arrange to have this available as a podcast...
It's just that I don't believe in yanking people out of their proper roles (i.e. women and children especially) and putting them in situations which impede the fulfillment of more immediate responsibilities, even when these are not really understood.
And what is a single woman's proper role? Searching the classifieds for a husband? Or using her increased mobility to serve the Lord? It seems like if anyone is going to be yanked anywhere, it ought to be the people least encumbered...
A_A_Plewes:
Who is being "yanked" out of their "proper role" to go overseas? Sarah, because of her particular giftings, desires to serve in this way. Who are you to judge her motives?
There are reasons of prudential judgment why one might not want to go to the Congo as a single woman. But this is about discernment, not hard-and-fast rules. I would hope that the missions board would be willing to exercise flexibility, but at the same time I can appreciate them not wanting to put people at risk for victimization.
In a Muslim nation like Morocco, men would probably be better suited for missions than women. But that's not about proper roles, it's about cultural awareness - being "all things to all people," as Paul would say.
And why shouldn't a single man be "willing to structure his life around his wife's career goals"? Of course, no one should go to the Congo simply for the sake of marriage. If Sarah were being serious, rather than facetious, about wanting to find a husband so she can go overseas, she would be looking for someone who had giftings that would be suitable in another area of ministry. That way the two of them could compliment each other.
The callings of married and single people are different. I myself, though I am a man, will have to reassess my lifestyle in the city once, Lord willing, I have children. Not necessarily leave the city, but at least give my situation some thought. But, as Paul said, both unmarried men and women "care about the things of the Lord" - how they may be pleasing to Him (1 Cor. 7:32-35). That is our place. I believe that there are both single men and women who are called to be pleasing to Him in Africa. I can't speak about the Congo particularly; I can understand why there would be a concern about women being raped or otherwise exploited. My concern, however, is to defend the principle that single women are not in the same status as children. Rather, in most respects at least, they are in the same status as single men. Paul's contrast in 1 Cor. 7 between the reciprocal concern that married individuals have for each other and the focused vertical concern that single individuals have to be faithful to the Lord is illuminating here, I believe.
Was Amy Carmichael motivated by guilt and pity?
In conclusion, A_A_Plewes, I want to say I thank you for your remarks, though I believe we have profound disagreements, especially with regard to singleness and gender. There are many people out there who seek to motivate us by guilt and pity, and we need to watch out for such. I would like to discuss with you the role of the local vs. universal church further at some point, as it's something that has been on my heart lately. Do you have a blog of your own?
'Who is being "yanked" out of their "proper role" to go overseas? Sarah, because of her particular giftings, desires to serve in this way. Who are you to judge her motives?'
I'm not judging her motives. Further, why do you think that particular comment was directed at Sarah? It wasn't, by the way. It was a intended to be very general -- and I'm not only referring to women and children, though you seem to be taking it that way.
A general rule of thumb for reading my comments: don't take them personally, and don't take anything to be more specific than it actually is.
'And why shouldn't a single man be "willing to structure his life around his wife's career goals"?'
The fact that you're even asking this question tells me that you and I are oceans apart. If we were in the same room with time to kill I'd be happy to explain this type of perspective. In this context, however, we won't get anywhere.
'My concern, however, is to defend the principle that single women are not in the same status as children. Rather, in most respects at least, they are in the same status as single men.'
Interesting point of view. I think I've heard this idea before.
I don't agree. At all. Neither does Mosaic case law. I'm betting that'll be another sticking point between us.
'I believe we have profound disagreements..."
Let me enumerate: I am a racist, sexist, anti-semitic, conspiracy-theorizing wacko. Or so I've been told. If you still want to associate yourself with such, my blog is here, and since I see you are also into media theory, you might be interested in this old post, on which C&C is most welcome.
Regards.