BaptistLife.Com Forums.

He was both, a moron and a martyr.

I've heard conflicting reports as to where he went to college, Oral Roberts or Liberty.

Part of this story is wrapped in the assumption that the goal is to go in and tell the story. The problem is that there must be a context for the story. As you look at the missions model practiced by Paul as an example, he either began in the Jewish synagogue and continued there or began with the "God-fearers" who were already drawn to monotheism. Where he did not have that context, he settled into a longer stay to establish the context for his mission. The idea of getting in the face of isolated tribes with the gospel seems a waste of a good life. Contacts before plunging onto a beach is essential. The agency he represented bears a lot a guilt here unless he was in defiance of orders.

From Gerry Milligan...How can one dispute what a person perceives as a "call from God." In our 32 years on the field with the FMB/IMB, the vetting process was rather extensive, but there were a few who made it to the field based on what they perceived as a call. Most (not an empirical amount) of those did not last one term. One family who made it to the field with a severely disabled child tried to sue the IMB for sending them home because they were "called." I have no knowledge of All Nations, but wonder why someone who could not communicate with his target people would not be discouraged from trying to engage that people group? Did All Nations fail him? I do not know. Was he a moron? Probably. I do not think that God would call someone and let him flounder, but cannot question a true "call from God." Is he a martyr? I cannot say yes based on what little I know. Was a life wasted? That remains to be seen.

It seems dangerously subjective to claim a "calling" to take the gospel to a particular people group and to just do that without some kind of objective affirmation. Feeling that "the Lord has laid this on my heart" is sometimes just a personal mandate to do as you please and use God as an excuse. There is a branch of Christianity (and Oral Roberts University would be one of its promoters) that believes you can just go and "speak the word" and God is somehow obligated to bless it. I see that perspective in some of the comments about this incident.

There is a fine line in the whole modern missions movement in America where enthusiasm and "calling" crosses a line into arrogance, including attitudes of cultural superiority and acting like missionaries coming to your country is doing you a favor, or that you expect some kind of response from people who have heard the gospel for the first time.

During a period of time when I was the senior staff member left at a church after the pastor resigned, our youth pastor was hot to put together a mission trip to Japan to "help" one of our sister SBC congregations "evangelize." This was at a cost of somewhere around $2,000 per person. I asked the obvious question about how could a group of mostly youth who did not speak Japanese assist a church with "evangelism." From the reaction I got, you'd have thought that I didn't understand the second chapter of Acts. The justification turned out to be a lot of discussion about the experience for the youth, how few Christians there are in the country, how the presence of American Christians would be a "shot in the arm" of the church. Out of a week in the country they spent a couple of afternoons handing out copies of the "Jesus Movie" in Japanese at the subway station. Other than a short clip of two or three students walking up to people showing them the package with the movie, and a few minutes of the worship service on Sunday, the rest of their return video was of their sightseeing adventure. Testimonies on their return were about the "poor" Japanese people, masses of whom don't know Christ because there aren't very many Evangelical churches and how sad they were because there was all this prosperity but no faith. Maybe their presence was a boost to the congregation they served, a group of about 100 people total, most of whom were European and American expatriates.

All the comments are good. I particularly appreciate Gerry's and others who have lived overseas and have experience with adventurers. I've said a lot elsewhere. I sympathize with the grieving family and friends of the man.

I still want to know the gospel function of the plastic football he left on the beach as a gift prior to returning to be martyred.

I mean, I understand that Jesus has a lot invested in American football, but using as the opening sermon topic when preaching to a people group that has never had any contact with American (Christian) culture seems ill thought out, somehow.

I was just listening to a radio program on NPR which mentioned the missionary. An organized that helped train the missionary would not endorse what he chose to do.

It was also pointed out the he put the people of the Island at great risk because there is evidence that these Islanders have no immunity to common illnesses not on the Island. he basically could killed the tribe if he'd given them as much as a case of the flu.

Probably an antivaxer, too...

Thanks, Tim. That's interesting. Their initial response to his death (in the OP) doesn't indicate anything like that. Perhaps they were just being polite, and later maybe decided to respond because they were getting push-back against irresponsibility in their agency.

Did anyone notice that the mission sending agency looked like the directors are all a bunch of amateurs? I didn’t see much in any of their bios about missiological training, theological education, etc.

I read in at least one article that common practice for missionaries now is that you do not go into a potentially hostile mission field without knowing the basics of the language. It is pretty tough to learn a language from someone who is trying to kill you. I’m wondering if he had different missionlogical training if he might not have made the fatal mistake he made?

Also, despite what the CBF leader said above, it is also my understanding that current practice is that you don’t do anything to endanger the people who are intending to witness to. The warnings about the tribe’s lack of immunity to disease should have been a strong caution against close contact. You don’t learn languages from people trying to kill you, and you don’t lead people to Jesus if you end up killing them.

I don't think you can gather much from the bios on their website. A few of those on there do list degrees, including those appropriate for missions service, and there are a couple who use the title Doctor, assuming that's a PhD or a theology degree. It's not a thing anymore on church or ministry websites to have long lists of "degrees and pedigrees". Smiling faces, short video clips and a casual appearance are the thing now. I know from seminary friends who didn't get accepted by the IMB that there are agencies who send anyone willing and provide limited training. I don't think we will ever know anything about this particular missionary's motivation or plan. But it will be a black eye on the modern missions movement.