Did Paul go to a FOREIGN FIELD?

As a Missionary Evangelist to the Spanish Speaking People, I'm adamant about showing the difference between a missionary going to a PLACE and going to a PEOPLE. For in the Bible, a Missionary is not called to preach to a certain place but to a specific People.

Sadly, modern tradition does not follow the Bible in its mission thrust, rather desiring only to send missionaries to places, claiming they are only allowed to stay in those places and preach. But is this Biblical?

Let us look at the Apostle Paul as our example, which most everyone does, and let's ask the question: "What Field was he called to?"

That's hard to answer. For Paul didn't just go to just one country. He went ALL OVER with the Gospel, staying several years in one place, several years in another, then he moved on for six years in another place, then three in another, etc.

The fact is he wasn't called only to a certain field. He went to many different places with the Gospel and not just one place for life (as many modern missionaries are instructed to do).

So the question should be asked, "If Paul were alive today, would his method of spreading the Gospel be accepted, when so many believe in using a completely different method for missions?"

Probably not.

In our day and age of apostasy, the way modern Christianity does things is so far away from the way that the apostles did it that they seldom resemble each other. I mean just think about it. If the apostle Paul was alive today, and under the rules of today, he would not have been able to make it as a Missionary. Number one he was single, which most people don't like for a missionary to be. Number two, he had no "Mission Board" which most missionaries are expected to have. And three, he didn't state what field he was going to, he just went and took the Gospel with him where ever he went.

As a Missionary to Spanish Speaking People, I hear it all the time, "Well, we can't support you financially as we only can support missionaries to a foreign field."

But where's that in the Bible? What if we were to ask the Apostle Paul what "foreign field" he went to, how would he respond? I'm sure he'd just state the truth, "I didn't go to any FOREIGN field. I just went to the ROMAN EMPIRE!"

For you see, even though some of the places Paul visited are today different countries and nations, in Paul's time that was not the case. Everywhere Paul journeyed in his four "missionary journeys" was a part of the Roman Imperial Government. That is one government ruled the entire area in his time, and he traveled within the confines of that government.

In other words, the Apostle Paul wasn't a missionary to any foreign nation. He was a domestic missionary to his own country governed by the Romans. And he not only took the Gospel to the Gentiles, but to the Jews as well. (He was a missionary to PEOPLE, not just a PLACE!)

How different this is from today, in which many claim to only want to support missionaries to foreign countries! They are now big on the 10-40 window and claim that supporting missions means only supporting missionaries to those certain foreign countries, especially to those in which the Gospel has not entered heavily.

Now before going farther, let me say, there is nothing wrong with going as a missionary to a "foreign field," to use their vocabulary. That's great that someone would surrender their life to go to a people in a different country of a different culture to try to win them to Jesus. BUT THAT'S NOT ALL THERE IS TO MISSIONS! Jesus told the early apostles to go to four places: Jerusalem, Judea, Sumaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth.

Most pastors and churches want to focus only on the last one today, but all the other ones still need evangelizing as well!

This modern teaching being propogated by traditionalism that teaches a missionary is only sent to a foreign field is not only un-biblical, but also unlogical. For God wants all men everywhere to be saved, not just those in the 10-40 window.

I call myself a "Missionary Evangelist to Spanish Speaking People in the Americas." I do so because I'm trying to reach Hispanics in the Americas, and I know the Americas are being united under a new global world system. (For those that don't know, Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. are all now one area called Zone 1, while Central America is now united and called Zone 4).

God didn't call me to one country to stay for life and only reach the few people there under my influence. God called me to the Americas to travel and preach and reach as many people as I can as I preach all over (Just as the Apostle Paul traveled).

To say a Missionary is only to one field is to limit God. For the Apostle Paul preached everywhere he went and as we read in Acts, he helped to "turn the world upside down!" Shouldn't we want to follow Paul and do the same? And how can we do that unless we follow his example?

To say a missionary is only called to one foreign field for life (as most modern pastors and churches teach) not only limits God, but greatly hinders a missionary's ministry. For what happens if he's kicked out of that country? Usually, he's told he can no longer be a missionary because God called him to that country and he can't be there, and he loses all his support. Oftentimes he's ousted out of the ministry entirely, and not even allowed to be a missionary anywhere else by his mission board or sending church. For changing fields makes him out of God's will in the eyes of others.

But this teaching that a Missionary can only go to the foreign field will soon have to be rethought out. For the world will soon be joined together as a New World Order in which there is one government over the entire globe. What will become of the modern mission teaching that a missionary is only someone sent to a foreign field then, when nothing will be foreign as the entire world will be domestic? Will missionaries be sent to the Moon, as that's the last true foreign field?

What will happen if all the world becomes a one world state? Will we finally then go back to supporting missionaries who do like Paul did, travel and preach the Gospel where ever they are going?

This modern teaching that you should only support missionaries to "foreign fields" is silly. Sure we should support those who do go to "foreign fields" but we should also support missionaries who are working domestically to win our friends and neighbors.

We also should realize that all Christians are really "Missionaries" for they all are to preach the Gospel to the lost.

Did Paul only go to a foreign field? Nope. He was a true Missionary because he didn't wait to preach the Gospel until he got someplace (as most Missionaries do), rather he preached the Gospel where ever he went and did so faithfully. God blessed it and countless thousands came to Jesus Christ for salvation.

Women Missionaries?

It's amazing to me how many Fundamentalists and Baptist ministers are quick to preach the Bible and quote verses about women not being able to pastor or preach, but yet they then allow women missionaries in their pulpits and even support them to go to the field. Am I the only one that thinks this is a blatant contradiction?

The verses they use to prove women are not allowed to be ordainded ministers are the following:

1 Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1 Cor 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Tim 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

The first verses in Corinthians speak in context of women "prophecying" or "PREACHING" in the pulpit, and of course this is not permited in the Bible. (See also 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:6 which speak of pastors being MEN who are married to one wife, and not women).

The verses in Timothy speak of a woman usurping authority over a man, and "TEACHING" them. This is something that God forbids, for the context shows us that women are more easily deceived (they are led by their emotions), then men (who usually don't let their emotions sway them as they make decisions based on facts).

Very few modern Fundamentalists allow women positions of authority in the church, such as that of Pastor or Deacon, so that they might PREACH to the congregation, nor do they allow women to TEACH men. But in these last days of apostasy, I've seen a surge in the Fundamentalist movement of "Women Missionaries," who are allowed by these very same preachers the same priviledges of regular male missionaries. And I can't help but wonder, "How can this be?"

This leads us to the question, "What is a Missionary?" Well, I guess that's all how you define the word. Some say it only means, "One sent." That is to say, it's someone who is sent to a foreign field to preach the Gospel. That's a good definition, and I've even preached that myself a couple of times. But that's not really a Biblical definition of the word. According to the Bible, a Missionary is an office of the church, and is someone who is ordained by the laying on of hands, and who is sent out to start churches, just like the Apostle Paul. Simply put, a missionary, is to PREACH THE GOSPEL, and start churches, and then TEACH men to take over those churches so he can travel to other places with the Gospel.

Where does this leave women? And where does this leave the modern teaching of "women missionaries?" Can a women PREACH in a church? NOPE! Then how can she be sent from a local church to a foreign field to start local churches???

And, biblically, are women allowed to usurp authority over men and teach them? NOPE! Then how can any Pastor who knows his Bible send a women as a missionary when she's not allowed to TEACH men, which is what a Missionary is supposed to do???

Well, the classic answer is, "Well, we are only sending her off to work with children!" Or, "We are only sending her to go help another missionary that's already there." Or, "We are sending her just to go work in an orphanage."

My question then becomes, "Why do you need to call her a Missionary then? Why can't you say she's going to HELP?"

And ever better asked is, "Why don't you pray for God to send along a husband for her so that she and he can go together???" Doesn't the Bible say that two are better than one?

I went to Honduras as a single missionary, and I sure needed a wife. While on deputation, I ran accross a single woman who called herself a "missionary" to the Ukraine. I asked here, "Why are you doing this?" She replied, "I believe God's called me to the Ukraine." I then responded, "Why don't you just pray and ask God to give you a husband who's going there as a Missionary? Why are you trying to go there by yourself when you can't do what a Missionary is supposed to do?"

She got mad and stormed off without answering. But I thought I had a good question. She can't PREACH in a pulpit, so she can't start a church there, and she can't TEACH men, so what is she going for, and why should churches steal support from a man who can fulfill the qualifications of a missionary to give it to a women. Sounds a little like Women's Lib to me!

Where did this whole movement of "Women Missionaries" get started? Why if you study a little, you'll see it's more of a Southern Baptist thing then an Independent Baptist thing. You have your Lottie Moon's, and your Mary Slessors, etc. But did they do right?

I remember being engaged to a young lady years ago whose mother was all for Women Missionaries. She even taught Sunday School, and told young ladies, "Maybe someday you can be a woman missionary and be just like Mary Slessor or Lottie Moon, and serve the Lord."

It turns out later this same women was a FEMINIST, and was also teaching feminism to the young ladies, telling them, It's your life and your body, so you can do what you want!

The Biblical role of a woman being under the authority of her husband, and being his HELP, meet for his needs was played down, while young girls heads were filled with ideas of doing what men are supposed to do. It didn't take long for me to figure out "AS IS THE MOTHER, SO IS THE DAUGHTER," and my fiancee and I had to break up, as she didn't want to be under the authority of a man.

I give this illustration, as I see the whole "Women Missionary" movement as not only hypocritical, but it's also anti-biblical, as it gives women the feminist idea that she doesn't need a man and she can go and do whatever she wants to by herself for God.

Any Pastor who helps pass on such an idea ought to be ashamed of himself! And I've met some even within the Independent Baptist movement. I've even been spoken against by several Pastors for my stand against "Women Missionaries," and I've lost support over the issue. But I just don't believe it's right to say women can't PREACH and TEACH to men in America, but they can do it in another country. There is something very wrong and hypocritical about that kind of teaching.

So what do you think? Care to comment? Careful, you just might be showing your FEMINIST attitude if you support such a thing.

For more about "women missionaries" why not read my article about it, found at:

http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/articles/women_missionaries.htm

Note: It's imparative that I add in closing that I'm not against women doing personal one on one evagelism with lost people. Women need to preach the Gospel to lost souls just as much as men do. But the Bible is against women preaching in Pulpits, and teaching Men.