Mission Boards and Committees: Danger
Introduction:
Southern Presbyterian scholar, James H. Thornwell (1812-1862), along with other Old School Presbyterians, were sharp critics of the model of missions they saw developing in their day. That new model relied on the use of Parachurch groups and denominational boards and committees to more and more carry out the role of missions. Thornwell was right in his condemnation of this dangerous practice that was neither Biblical nor efficient.

Today it seems that the church is reaping the benefits of rejecting the wisdom of men like Thornwell. The effects, however, have been felt for a long time. The church not only created committees and boards to run missions, but some denominations eventually went to independent mission boards. The church became separated from its command to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel.”

Dangers:
Thornwell, writing to Dr. Robert Jefferson Breckinridge (1800-1871) said: “I believe that the Boards will eventually prove our masters, unless they are crushed in their infancy. They are founded upon a radical misconception of the true nature and extent of ecclesiastical power; and they can only be defended, by running into the principle against which the Reformers protested...” In other words, Mission Boards would spread their claws everywhere.

There are also many practical dangers to mission boards. For example: Church boards tend toward the developing of a professional missionary cadre so everything on the mission field is designed to perpetuate the institution. Consequently there is less and less interest in aggressively training men for the ministry and turning the local congregations over to the nationals. More, in order to justify their existence, Mission Boards often need to pressure missionaries to produce results. Results make it possible to “sell” the missionary.

Historical:Historically, on his first missionary journey, Paul was sent out by the congregation at Antioch or possibly by a group of churches. He then reported to the church at Antioch upon completing his work. His home church was not an outside board, but the elders.

The first semblance of church boards, however, was organized when missionaries were sent out to meet and evangelize the barbarians after Constantine recognized the church. Later, during the time of the Reformation, the Reformers had to quickly consolidate their positions from the Roman Church, and then soon after had to battle with the Counter-Reformation. There was not a lot of time available to be given to mission strategies. The Roman Church won more converts in the pagan world than it lost in the Protestant Reformation.

Later, missionary societies developed amid the laziness and ignorance of the church. For example, when William Carey proposed at a ministerial meeting that they discuss the implications of the Great Commission, Dr. John C. Ryland retorted: "Young man, sit down. When God pleases to convert the heathen, He will do it without your aid or mine." Carey then worked for a mission board to do what the church was not doing - sending missionaries to foreign lands. And while mission board’s motives were good, their means of performing a task not delegated to them was erroneous.

These societies then set the stage for the American mission boards – both foreign and domestic. Here many mission boards were founded because the laity wanted to delegate that responsibility of sending missionaries. From these developed the Student Missionary Movement and groups such as Campus Crusade, etc. With no direct oversight of the local church, ill-equipped missionaries (often youths) were sent off to the mission field and quietly made a mess of things, compromising the Gospel. (Poor eschatology certainly promoted these missionaries as well.)

What is the answer to this problem? Thornwell’s answer is still valid today: “I am satisfied that there is a dangerous departure, in the present age of bustle, activity, and vain-glorious enterprise, from the simplicity of the institutions which Christ has established for the legitimate action of the Church. He has appointed one set of instrumentalities, and ordained one kind of agency in His kingdom; but we have made void his commandments, in order to establish our own inventions. I believe that the entire system of voluntary Societies and ecclesiastical Boards, for religious purposes is fundamentally wrong. The church, as organized by her Head, is competent to do all that he requires of her. He has furnished her with the necessary apparatus of means, officers, and institutions, in Sessions, Presbyteries, Elders, Pastors, and Evangelists…”

Congregations must know and assume their responsibilities for sending out missionaries. They, unlike the Mission Board, have a personal command from God and a personal knowledge of the man they send. If a congregation were too small, she should work with other congregations to supervise and support a missionary. On the other hand, Mission Boards must be abolished and repent for the trouble they have caused to the Lord’s Church. While the local Consistory can appoint committees to do some work in missions, spiritual oversight remains the work of the Consistory as a whole – as in our case in Scarborough. Thanks brothers for not putting me out of the church’s oversight! Watch me!