| Purity of Motive Why should we worry about it? After all, we cannot read the hearts of men... or can we? Can it be that the motives of some can be seen in the behavior they exhibit? Through the process of carefully evaluating their behavior in the light of their circumstances cannot certain conclusions drawn? If this is not true, then maybe we should give up trying to "do the right thing" and just do whatever we want to achieve our objectives. After all, preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ is our work - and the salvation of souls is our aim. If the convert can come to Christ with just any old motive, or with a mixed bag of motives, or with the most carnal of motives and truly be saved, then we should save them by "all" means. But, if the only acceptable motive is a pure and sincere desire to know the Lord, then maybe we should step back and evaluate "how it is" that we are preaching the gospel in some places overseas. To preach the gospel of Jesus Christ as did the apostle Paul, we should resolve to know nothing among the people save Jesus Christ and Him crucified (cf. 1 Cor. 2:2). The mixing of the gospel with other things often leads to a confusion with regard to the motives of those who come to our meetings. Sometimes the subtle deviation from simply offering a message of hope leads to the raising of "other hopes" in the hearts of those who see an opportunity. When their eyes are not on Jesus, but on some other lure, the hope of salvation takes a back seat to a different desire, often a carnal desire. The shame of it is that we do not always recognize where we have deviated from the New Testament pattern of preaching and have succumbed to the practice of offering various "loaves" for the purpose of coaxing the crowds to "come and hear". The problem lays in the fact that they are not coming to hear the gospel, but in anticipation of receiving the "loaves". When the "loaf" is more important to the one who comes, it is time to take away the loaves and let his sincerity be tested. There is nothing wrong with this approach to sorting out the wheat from the chaff. It is scriptural (cf. John 6). It is time to put the hearer to the test. If they should decide to "turn back" and walk with us no more, then it will not be the first time. But, think of all the bread we can save. Jesus did not run after the ones who turned back when they did not receive their loaves and neither should we. Rather, we should examine how it is that we are fishing for men. Are we using doughball baits? Or are we content to let the pure gospel of Christ be our net? Consider if you will the effect of the following practices in drawing men to ourselves when we work in the gospel overseas: FREE FOOD How does that sound to you (free food)? It has its appeal, does it not? If you were to put a sign out front and advertise free food you could draw a crowd just about anywhere. The denominational churches do it with "fellowship meals and pie suppers". We recognize it for what it is, a loaf offered to attract the carnal minded. It works. You can fill the church building for a worship service if have the chili simmering on the stove for afterward. We would never do that because we recognize that carnality of the appeal. If people want to eat, let them eat at home (that is the scriptural admonition - 1 Corinthians 11:34). This is all good and well, until we go overseas. Then, we look upon the poor and we decide that before they can hear the gospel they need to be provided with a good meal, so they can "listen better". After all, how can a man hear the preaching of the gospel when his stomach is growling and interfering with the message? Would it not be better to quiet his stomach before approaching his mind? Thus goes the "logic" and before we can say "free food" we have fallen into a trap of our own making. Let me ask a question? If we did not feed people before preaching to them, what would they do - starve to death? There are very few places in the world where this would be the situation and I dare say that few of us have preached in such a place. Even in the poorest regions into which we venture with the gospel, people have food and are eating daily. IF we did not feed them, they would eat. It may not be something that we would consider the best of foods, but it sustains them. They have lived for generations on the foods that they provide for themselves and they will not starve to death if they don't have pizza or hamburgers. Our mistake is that we judge them according to our American standards of what we have deemed necessary to be "well fed" and when their cirucmstances don't allow such extravagance, we feel sorry for them - and offer them a loaf. We have failed to calculate the effect of our benevolence on the motives of those coming to hear our gospel. Jesus knew that it did not take a sumptuous banquet offered before the motives of the followers became "mixed" or even wholly carnal (bread only religion). When we associate our gospel with the anticipation of "something to eat", often things they are not accustomed to having, things that represent the luxuries of life, the kinds of things we Americans enjoy daily, then we are the ones who are subverting the pure motives of those who would come to Christ for Christ's sake. When we are offering the "bread of life" (Jesus) to those who are hungering after righteousness, let us not be guilty of trying to sweeten it up with the peanut butter and jelly that is sometimes offered. What about the value of Christians eating together? Is that something that we should do today? By all means Christians should associate and share their food together. But, there are certain considerations that need to be weighed carefully before we open the door to practices that will hinder the gospel through the offering of a carnal (meat and potatoes) incentive for participating. First, all such banquetings need to be carefully segregated from the work of the church. A careful analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 will serve to demonstrate the danger of confusing spiritual business with the business of eating. Let all of our eating together be an outgrowth of individual and home responsibilites without the taint of a "church connection". In this we will not err. Second, we should make sure that when we eat together, it is a "shared" effort where all who participate in the eating, participate in the sharing of the food to be eaten. If one party is always providing all of t! he food for the rest, then it is not a sharing of food in the sense that it should be. Granted, if a few do not have so much to contribute, they should not be denied an opportunity to share with their brethren. But, most people will have something to share in the event that they are encouraged to do so. This common contributing to such a gathering embraces the spirit of what it means to "give" or share with others. Let me offer one more word on the subject of food in foreign situations. Instead of trying to bring a taste of the American cuisine to the rest of the world, why not rather let us try to adapt to the local menu? Learning to eat what our brethren eat and sharing with them in the things they freely offer us would go a long way to making ourselves to appear all things to all men. It would not hurt us to eat differently or even less for the time that we labor among them. (granted, if it is a question of health, avoid any unsafe foods). Rather than offend some native grandmother by refusing to taste her "specialty", we could try to cultivate a little more understanding and show a little more sensitivity to their traditional diet. Give it a try... you might like it - and even if you don't, she will appreciate the fact that you made the effort. ENGLISH LESSONS We usually don't think about the value of communicating in English here in the United States, because everybody is using it - English. But, when we travel abroad to preach the gospel we find that the whole world is not using Eastern Standard Time, nor are they all speaking American. But, many in the world would love to learn to talk like you do and they will give you every opportunity to teach them your English. What we often mistake for an interest in spiritual things is really nothing more than an interest in learning English. When this happens the "content" of what is being said takes a back seat to the "packaging" in which it comes. When we allow ourselves to be manipulated by those who would learn our English without any real concern for our gospel, we become the free language professors of the world and the greatest shame of it is that we often do not realize we have been so used. This is a real problem for those who would preach in other countries when they do not know the language. Does it mean that they should not go? Of course not. Through translators the Word of God has been and can be effectively taught. What we should avoid is diluting the focus of our work of preaching the gospel into efforts to teach English. This problem can be recognized and removed if we would just give some honest consideration to some of the situations in which we have found ourselves. The institutional brethren have known the power of the "lure" of free English instruction for many years and have implemented world wide language schools as "part of" their evangelistic efforts. In most places around the world it is expensive to pay for classes where you can learn English. But, if a church were to offer "free English classes" they would have a great number of new students all eager to learn. This "English language loaf" is very tasty to those hungering and thirsting after grammar and vocabulary and they do not care so much if they have to learn their English by reading the gospel of John. We can see the bait and switch tactic when the liberals use it. Why can't we see it when we do it? FINANCIAL ADVANTAGES If you were to stand on a street corner and give away money, you would soon have a great crowd of followers who would be interested in everything you had to say -- until the money ran out. Then, your financially motivated followers would return to what it was they were doing before you bought their attention. Bees are attracted to honey and flies are drawn by... well, you have the idea. People will come to money or any other financial advantage that is easy to acquire and all you have to do is make it available. Great churches can be built very fast through the offer of financial advantages that are not readily available through the normal channels of society. Call it benevolence, call it medical outreach, call it the elimination of poverty, call it emergency relief.... but, call it for what it really is: free money or advantage. If this is the work of the church, then by all means let us spend every last dime to better the physical condition of our poor brethren around the world. Let us send it all, holding nothing back until we ourselves are impoverished, only to discover the truth Jesus revealed long ago (cf. John 12:8). But, if our goals are more elevated, more spiritual, then it would behoove us not to place such a temptation before the poor of the world. We should keep our focus on the souls of men and their need for eternal salvation, letting the day to day concerns for the things of this world take care of themselves. Money does indeed talk, but when we stop to listen to what it says, it is not always what we want to hear. With a few dollars of American support we can have a pocketful of native preachers, the very best money can buy. Is there anybody against having more preachers? By creating positions for paid translators and providing for them wages that they could not reasonably hope to obtain on the open market, we will have people lined up to try out for the job. When this new class of preacher / translator finds out that he can travel with Americans all around the country, that they will be supported to do this and will travel first class and enjoy the best of everything (like the Americans do).... it is a "choice" position to be desired. Throw in the possibility of travelling someday to America and the applicant line will stretch around the corner and way down the street. What is it about this motivation that we do not understand? (cf. 1 Timothy 6:5) There are ways to avoid this pitfall, but we often seem to enjoy being down in this dark hole. We look for it. We dig ourselves into it.... deeper and deeper, time and again. Could it be that we have found a shortcut, an "easy way" to develop quick converts and ready made native preachers? Buying converts doesn't take nearly as much effort as it does money and we have plenty of money. It looks good on a report to say that we have converted a sincere, earnest, helpful young man who will soon be the first native preacher in __________ (fill in your own country). What doesn't look so good is how they all seem to fall away the very minute that the money dries up. So much for being converted to Christ. If we would just follow a few common sense rules, the folly of buying "converts and preachers" could be largely avoided. First rule: let the native Christians where you are working "select" their own man to be their preacher. The biggest mistake we make is to choose the preacher for them, the single criteria used most often is: does he speak English? We are inclined to confuse a marginal ability to converse in English with faithful character. What we get is marginal character in our appointees, something that would not happen so easily if the people who know him best were to do the selecting. Many, many are the times when we have failed in our efforts to select a preacher from among the converts because we "did not know" (until it was too late) what kind of man it was that had deceived us. Second rule: Let the native brethren who choose their preacher support him. Yes, you heard it right. Let them pay him from their own money. American support is not the "answer". It is the problem. When Christians around the world are taught to select and support their own men to preach the gospel, it will conform to the scriptural pattern of how preachers should be supported. We do them a great disservice when we do not teach them this responsibility from the beginning. We compound this mistake by offering amounts of support far and above a normal wage supported in the economies of the countries where we preach. If the local economy will pay a man on average $100 per month, we will send a preacher there five or ten times that amount and consider it a "bargain" when measured against what an American preacher will get for the same work. Our generosity in this regard does great harm and becomes the "motive" for many conversions. Once the word is out that the Americans are supporting men to preach at such high wages, men who have no interest in the things of God will develop a convincing spiritual facade and get in line to become a "preacher". When we intrust the native Christians to select and support their own preacher, they will not pay him exorbitant wages, but will support him at a reasonable level, one that will not corrupt his motive for serving God. CONCLUSION There is no conclusion to this article. We have just barely touched the hem of the garment and much more needs to be said. Problem is that many who need to hear it will not listen. We make the same mistakes over and over again and it appears that we are incapable of learning from them. What is the problem here? Pride? Lack of imagination? Absence of vision? An inability to discern? Why is it that we have built up churches in other parts of the world and enslaved them to an American welfare style system of support? When we send the support year after year, generation after generation without their ever learning to become independent, does this make us feel "needed"? We return year after year because they "need us", when what they really need is the check that comes in the mail. If all the money being sent overseas to support native works were to suddenly come to a screeching halt, what would remain? If the answer is "nothing", then I would ask what is there now? We spoke of the need for purity in motive for those who would come to Christ. Let us address the need for purity in motive for those who would preach Christ. There are some who would make a big name overseas, some who feel the need for instant success and are willing to buy it, some who are not adverse to taking short cuts with Bible authority when working in another language. They may not recognize themselves as such, but it is manifested in their work. To lay any other foundation than that of Jesus Christ is to guarantee that the work will not stand in the judgment of God. Let us all determine to insist on purity of motive on the part of all who would come to God through Christ. It is time we remove all obstacles to their having only one noble reason to come the Lord in repentance. Without resorting to the tasty loaves (food, money, advantage), let us preach Christ with singleness of purpose. Let the convert be drawn to the Son of Man through truth and love. When there are no competing motives for becoming a Christian, the sincerity of those baptized will not be called into question. When persecutions and mistreatment at the hands of their former friends and associates are promised, the only gain to be expected is to know Christ. Let this be their riches. If they are to taste a loaf, let it be the simple and unadorned Bread of Life. Alan Williamson January 24, 2000 |